ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked-

West Midlands Police

Bob Ainsworth: If she will discuss with West Midlands police the likely effects on police numbers in the west midlands of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review.

Theresa May: The Government's first duty is to protect the public. The events of the last few days have been a stark reminder of the harm our enemies wish to inflict on us. I will make a statement later this afternoon on the airline terror plot, following the Prime Minister's statement on the European Council.
	To respond to the right hon. Gentleman's question, I spoke to Chris Sims, the chief constable of West Midlands police, just under a fortnight ago. He reassured me, as he has also done publicly, that he remains absolutely confident that West Midlands police will continue to protect and serve people in the west midlands in the way they expect. I will continue to hold discussions with police forces.

Bob Ainsworth: Of course they will try, but West Midlands police is planning to shed 400 police officers and support staff, and that is just in year one. Why is low-crime Surrey getting a far lower rate of cuts than the west midlands? I thought we were all in this together.

Theresa May: May I first thank the right hon. Gentleman for advance notice of his question, which he tweeted about half an hour ago?
	The effectiveness of a police force does not depend primarily on the numbers of staff. What matters is how effectively they are deployed, whether they are visible and available doing the job the public want them to do, and whether they have been freed from unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy. We will be doing that, and the steps we are already taking to do away with the stop-and-account form and to reduce the amount of information recorded for stop and search will save 800,000 man hours a year.

Edward Balls: We will hear more from the Home Secretary later this afternoon about the security threat to our country, but I am sure the whole House will want to join me in commending her on the very calm way in which she has handled events over the past few days. I also want to thank her for welcoming me to my shadow role and offering me a detailed security briefing.
	On the spending review and its impact on police numbers in the west midlands, at the weekend the Home Secretary said that in the spending review it is important that the Home Office takes its share, and policing is taking its share in that, but given that the NHS budget is rising by 0.4% in real terms over four years and the Defence and Education budgets are falling by 7.5% and 11%, does the Home Secretary really think a real-terms cut in the Home Office budget of 25% and a 20% real-terms cut in the central resource budget for policing constitutes a fair share?

Theresa May: May I first welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post as shadow Home Secretary? I was pleased to be able to welcome him to his new position with a telephone call and, indeed, to be able to update him over the weekend on the recent events that have taken place-they will be discussed in more detail later this afternoon, of course.
	I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that, yes, it is important for the Home Office to be willing to look at playing its part in dealing with the biggest deficit of any G20 nation, a deficit that was left as a legacy to this country by his Labour Government.

Edward Balls: Police leaders in the west midlands and across the country will have to decide for themselves whether that was an adequate answer. In the last week, the accountancy firm KPMG has estimated that 18,000 police officers will lose their jobs, and the Police Federation says 20,000, which would mean that 1,200 officers would be lost in the west midlands alone in the next four years. Given the impact these cuts will have in the west midlands and across the country, does the Home Secretary agree with these estimates of deep cuts to front-line policing, or does she think that KPMG and the Police Federation have got their sums wrong?

Theresa May: I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman what I said to the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth): the issue of policing and the effectiveness of policing is not just about numbers, which is what he and his colleagues seem to think; it is about how we deploy police staff and the job they are doing out on the streets. I have more confidence in the ability of our chief constables up and down the country, chief constables like Jon Stoddart in Durham, who says that
	"our commitment to neighbourhood policing is undiminished"
	and the deputy chief constable in Essex who said:
	"We are...working on a...new Blueprint for policing...taking the opportunity fundamentally to re-design all aspects of how we deliver our services."
	We are clear that savings can be made without affecting front-line policing. We are doing our bit as a Government in reducing the heavy load of bureaucracy introduced by the right hon. Gentleman's Government, which will result in police being out on the streets.

Immigration System

Mark Spencer: What recent progress she has made on reform of the immigration system.

David Evennett: What recent progress she has made on reform of the immigration system.

Bob Blackman: What recent progress she has made on reform of the immigration system.

Phillip Lee: What recent progress she has made on reform of the immigration system.

Damian Green: In just six months, the coalition Government have made significant progress in the reform of the immigration system. We have introduced an interim limit on non-EU economic migrants and consulted on proposals for the annual limit. We are also reviewing student and family routes. We have made significant progress towards ending the detention of children and we have also begun exploring improvements to the asylum system.

Mark Spencer: The Minister will be aware that companies such as Rolls-Royce, in my constituency, require highly skilled staff from outside the EU. What can be done to ensure that those companies have access to those highly skilled staff while also ensuring that the immigrants coming in have the right skills?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, because this is what we are seeking to achieve under our annual limit: we want to ensure not only that the skills that may not be available at the moment in this country are made available, but that jobs are also available for British workers. I commend to him the research published by the Home Office last week showing that 29% of those who came in under the tier 1 route-the route meant for the most highly skilled: the people who are so highly skilled that they do not even need a job offer-were employed in low-skilled roles. That tells me that the points-based system has not been working as well as it should have been.

David Evennett: I welcome my hon. Friend's actions to date on this matter, but in order to bring net migration down to a sustainable level a robust limit on non-EU economic migration is vital. Will he update us on what progress he has made on dealing with other routes into the UK, for example, bogus colleges and illegal transportation?

Damian Green: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not just the economic routes we are looking at-as I have said, we are examining other routes. We are, of course, committed to attracting the brightest and best students to the UK, and we welcome legitimate students coming here to study legitimate courses, but there has been and still is significant abuse of the student route. Part of our summer crackdown on illegal immigration has been aimed at bogus colleges. We have suspended the licences of another five bogus colleges in the past three months, and I am happy to assure him and the House that we will continue to crack down as hard as possible on those using the student route to promote illegal immigration.

Bob Blackman: My hon. Friend has referred to the previous Government's policy of relying on a points-based system for controlling immigration. Can he elucidate on the figures he cited on the success of tier 1 migrants-by definition, the brightest and best-in obtaining highly skilled jobs?

Damian Green: The detail of the tier 1 research is fascinating because, as I say, it showed that nearly a third of the people who came in under that route were doing essential but low-skilled jobs-they were shop assistants, they were working in fast food outlets, and so on. Those are all jobs that need to be done, but upwards of 2 million people are unemployed in this country and they will find it very strange that those jobs, in particular, are being done by people who have come to this country under a route that is supposed to be specifically designed for the most highly skilled. That situation seems to be unfair to many of our British workers.

Phillip Lee: What are the Government doing to tackle the problem of sham marriages in the immigration system?

Kevan Jones: That was a killer question.

Damian Green: Some Labour Members seem not to think this an important issue, but it is an extremely important issue. Part of our summer crackdown has been precisely aimed at sham marriages, and that campaign has produced more than 800 arrests. Perhaps most vividly, and extremely regrettably, a Church of England vicar has been convicted of facilitating sham marriages. We are working very hard with the Church authorities to make sure that nothing like this happens in future and that we help vicars, those in register offices and all such people to make sure that they are not accidentally involved in any more of this type of criminality.

Keith Vaz: One area that might well need reform is the humane removal of failed asylum seekers, following the death only 20 days ago of Jimmy Mubenga. Will the Minister confirm newspaper reports that the contract for escort services provided by G4S has now been terminated? What immediate steps, pending the outcome of the police investigation and the other investigations, is he taking to ensure that that kind of tragic event never happens again?

Damian Green: The right hon. Gentleman will know, of course, that while a police investigation is going on it would be completely improper of me to give any details about that investigation. I can confirm that the contract for the removals has been given to Reliance, but I should say at this point-to clear up any possible misunderstanding-that the tendering for the new contract took place under the previous Government, last September, and the decision was taken in August. The change in the contract away from G4S has nothing to do with any recent events.

Fiona Mactaggart: One of the changes that the hon. Gentleman has made to the immigration service system is to bring forward pre-entry English language testing for spouses overseas. What assessment has he made of the availability and quality of English language teaching in places such as Pakistan and India, where many of these spouses come from?

Damian Green: The hon. Lady mentions two particularly entrepreneurial societies where, if there is a need for businesses, businesses will spring up. I remind her that the desire to introduce English language tests in that sphere was promoted by a Government of which she was a member. We have brought it forward to this November because, as I am sure she agrees, it is a significant way of ensuring that everybody who comes to this country can be fully integrated into the life of this country. That seems to me to be an extremely important goal for the long-term health of our society.

Pete Wishart: Does the Minister appreciate and understand that the different nations of the UK have different immigration requirements that require different solutions? Will he therefore start to explain how his immigration cap will help the nations of Scotland and Wales?

Damian Green: The immigration cap will help all parts of the United Kingdom by ensuring that we bring in the skills of those we need while not having the scale of immigration that we have had over the past 10 years, which has proved simply unsustainable. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that we could not carry on as we had done over the past decade. Over that decade, more than 2 million people net arrived in this country, putting pressure on public services. That is why we need an immigration limit and it will be for the benefit of every one of the nations of the United Kingdom.

Shabana Mahmood: On the subject of reforms to the immigration system and the particular point of deportation, the death of Jimmy Mubenga a few weeks ago was the first time that an escorted individual has died during deportation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) has twice requested a briefing from the Home Secretary regarding the circumstances of that case, and both requests have been refused. Will the Minister now make a statement to the House, updating Members on the progress of any internal investigation into Mr Mubenga's death and the use of restraint during enforced deportation more generally? In particular, will he state whether the use of restraint on children during deportation is also being reviewed?

Mr Speaker: Order. In less than a minute, if the Minister is going to do it now.

Damian Green: I welcome the hon. Lady to the Front Bench and congratulate her on her very rapid promotion. May I repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)? There is a police investigation going on at the moment. It would clearly be inappropriate for me or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to give any details about this case while the police investigation is going on. I am surprised that the shadow Home Secretary asked the hon. Lady to do that while a police investigation was going on.

National Crime Agency

Esther McVey: What assessment she has made of the likely effect on the administrative burden on police forces of the establishment of the proposed national crime agency.

David Ruffley: What assessment she has made of the likely effect on the administrative burden on police forces of the establishment of the proposed national crime agency.

Theresa May: We believe there is a real need to bring a greater focus to the issue of organised crime and other national aspects of policing. The national crime agency will strengthen the operational response to organised crime and better secure our borders. The NCA will contribute to our aim of rationalising the national policing landscape, thereby driving out waste and increasing productivity.

Esther McVey: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the new joined-up approach of the national crime agency, which will also incorporate functions from the National Policing Improvement Agency, will not only provide efficiency savings but will give equal attention to the individual regions, mine being the north-west?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I assure her that in setting up the national crime agency we are considering efficiency, and efficiency savings. We will be changing the national policing landscape and it is important to put greater emphasis on serious organised crime. Organised crime is calculated to cost this country and society £20 billion to £40 billion a year and it is right that we should do something to enhance our fight against it.

David Ruffley: Police forces have to comply with 162 separate protective services standards involving answering 1,099 separate questions. The fact that there is too much process and paperwork prevents the police from catching criminals, so will my right hon. Friend publish an annual statement to the House telling us what she has cut and how much police time she has saved?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that proposal. I suspect that is exactly the sort of thing that the Policing Minister will be happy to keep the House informed about. As I said earlier, a very good example of the impact of that bureaucracy is the fact that it is reckoned that what we are doing to stop the stop-and-account records and to change the stop-and-search records will save up to 800,000 man hours a year.

Ann Coffey: The Missing Persons Bureau is the only UK agency focused exclusively on missing people and is the UK's national and international point of contact for all missing person and unidentified body cases. What assurances can the Secretary of State give me that the valuable work it does will be recognised when the proposed national crime agency is set up?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady asks a very important question: the work of the bureau is of considerable significance. Work relating to young people has already moved to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and we are considering where it is most appropriate that the bureau's work relating to adults should sit in the new policing landscape.

Diana Johnson: Given the concerns that have been expressed by Sara Payne and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children as well as the evidence given by Jim Gamble to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on 12 October, will the Secretary of State tell the House what evidence base informed the decision to submerge the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre within the proposed national crime agency, especially given that previous independent reviews had supported CEOP remaining separate?

Theresa May: I welcome the hon. Lady to her position on the Opposition Front Bench. We have considered closely the CEOP issue, but there seems to be a misconception out there that it currently has independent status. It does not: it is part of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The proposals that we put in the White Paper, which will be coming forward in the Bill with our final decisions, relate to its becoming part of the national crime agency and being able to benefit from the synergies of being part of that agency.

Police Numbers

David Hanson: What estimate she has made of the likely effect of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review on the number of police officers in England and Wales in the period to 2014.

Chris Evans: How many police officers she expects there to be at the end of the current spending review period.

Nick Herbert: The number of police officers is not set by central Government, but we believe that forces can make savings to ensure that visible and available policing is secured for the public.

David Hanson: The Minister will be aware, because it has been mentioned already, that the poorest areas of England and Wales will bear disproportionately the brunt of any reductions in central Government funding, because the Home Office provides the bulk of resources to those areas in particular. That will mean fewer officers on the street and inexorable rises in crime. Is that fair?

Nick Herbert: I do not accept any of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We believe that police forces can make significant savings in line with the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which said that they could save more than £1 billion a year without impacting on the front line. The settlement that we have announced will enable them to protect the visible and available policing that is so important to the public.

Chris Evans: Fears over the cut in the number of police mean that there are real concerns that small forces such as Gwent police could disappear in forced mergers. Given the serious impact that that would have on the quality of front-line policing in Islwyn, can the Minister give an assurance that it will not happen?

Nick Herbert: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the previous Government proposed compulsory forced mergers. We do not intend to go down that route. Where forces wish to merge, if there is a sound business case and the merger has the consent of local people, we will not stand in the way. We believe that forces can make significant savings by sharing services and collaborating, without having to merge.

Tom Brake: How can the cost of elected police commissioners be minimised so that it reduces the impact on police officer numbers?

Nick Herbert: We do not wish elected police commissioners to cost any more than police authorities currently do. The exception is that there will be the cost of the elections, which will be once every four years. That will be met by separate funding. It will not come out of the police budget.

Philip Hollobone: Given that 10% of criminals cause 50% of the crime, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to maximise the effective use of police time would be to ensure that our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice ensure that persistent and prolific offenders, when apprehended, serve their time in jail in full?

Nick Herbert: I was talking about that this morning to senior police officers responsible for criminal justice policy. Our concern is to ensure that rising rates of reoffending are reversed. That means ensuring that sentences are effective, and that we focus on the rehabilitation that is necessary to ensure that prisons fulfil their purpose and criminals go straight.

Vernon Coaker: It is interesting that the Home Secretary chose not to answer the question on the spending review and the impact on police numbers, but we have heard from both the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister that thousands of police jobs are to be lost. The idea that that will not impact on front-line policing is one for the fairies. Can the Minister explain why the 20% cut announced in direct Government funding for police forces is front-loaded? In other words, of that 20%, why are the deepest, most far-reaching cuts in the first two years-next year 6%, in 2012-13 8%, then 4% and 4%? Why is the deepest, most far-reaching cut, 8%, in the year when the country is facing one of it greatest security challenges, the Olympics?

Nick Herbert: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position.
	Olympic security funding is being prioritised in Home Office budgets, and counter-terrorist policing was subject to a much lower cut than the 20% cut for policing. We intend to ensure that priority continues to be given to counter-terrorist policing. We believe that significant savings can be made. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary found that only 11% of force strength, on average, was visible and available at any one time, because officers are spending too much time tied up in the red tape that the hon. Gentleman created when he was Minister.

Anne-Marie Morris: What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure that when the cuts come, they will impact the back office rather than the front office? I have a particular concern in a rural constituency where front office is fairly thinly spread.

Nick Herbert: Chief constables agree with us that the front line should be the last thing that is cut, and on the spending settlement that we have announced, there is no need for the front line to be cut. They can make savings through better collaboration and efficiencies. That is what the inspectorate says. They can also make savings in relation to procurement, amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds. As a consequence, we think that the visible and available policing that the public value can be retained.

Community Support Officers

Peter Soulsby: What estimate she has made of the likely effect on the number of police community support officers in post of implementation of the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review; and if she will make a statement.

Kevan Jones: What estimate she has made of the likely effect on the number of police community support officers in post of implementation of the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review; and if she will make a statement.

Nick Herbert: PCSOs are an important part of the policing family, providing a visible, uniformed presence on our streets. It is for police forces and authorities to determine how they deploy their personnel, but we are clear that forces should be focusing on finding efficiencies in back-office and support functions to protect front-line policing.

Peter Soulsby: In recent years community support officers have become a vital part of the policing team, particularly in the delivery of crime prevention and genuine community policing. There can be nothing more front-line than that. It is inconceivable that the Department has not made an estimate of the number of these posts that will be lost. The House deserves to know what that number is, and the public deserve to know how this vital service will be cut.

Nick Herbert: We do not set the number of PCSOs; that is a decision for chief constables. When I speak to chief constables throughout the country, I, like the hon. Gentleman, find that they value police community support officers, and there is an overwhelming desire on the part of chief constables to protect PCSO numbers, in so far as is possible, as an important part of the delivery of neighbourhood policing. I share that view with the hon. Gentleman.

Kevan Jones: On Friday last week, Durham MPs met the deputy chief constable of Durham, who said that the constabulary was just about to announce 190 compulsory redundancies. When asked whether that would include community support officers, he said it could not give a guarantee, because the decision was dependent on whether its central Government grant was going to be protected. Can the Minister guarantee Durham that its money from central Government for PCSOs will be protected?

Nick Herbert: We will announce the specific allocations for forces and the future of particular grants later on this year, but on 20 October the chief constable of Durham said:
	"It will be business as usual as far as local communities-and local criminals-are concerned... our commitment to neighbourhood policing is undiminished."

Helen Grant: Does the Minister agree that good policing is about tangible results, and not fixated on cuts?

Nick Herbert: The previous Government would not give any guarantee on police officer numbers. Indeed, in many forces police officer numbers were already falling when this Government came to power. The test is about what those police officers are doing, and whether they are visible and available to the public. We will accept no lectures from the Opposition, who have put this country in the position of having to cut police officer funding.  [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not quite sure what Members had for either breakfast or lunch, but I think I had better steer clear of both.

Licensing Act 2003

Robert Buckland: When she plans to publish her proposals to amend the Licensing Act 2003.

James Brokenshire: The proposals for amendments to the 2003 Act will be included in the police reform and social responsibility Bill, which will be introduced later in the year.

Robert Buckland: Local residents and businesses in my constituency feel effectively gagged and excluded from the current licensing application process. What plans do the Government have to improve the fairness of the system?

James Brokenshire: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because the consultation that the Government embarked on in relation to reforms to the Licensing Act was precisely on that issue-about rebalancing the Act in favour of local communities. He makes his point very well, and we will bring forward proposals in due course.

Elfyn Llwyd: Those of us who argued against the 2003 Act did so on the basis that 24-hour drinking would not introduce a café society to the UK where youngsters sipped wine into the early hours discussing Baudelaire, because the only thing that the Act has done is to move yobbishness, drunkenness and violence from late nights to early mornings.

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and it will be interesting to hear whether the former licensing Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe), who is now on the shadow Front Bench, will be able to explain why that café culture, which was supposed to be created as a result of the previous Government's reforms, has perhaps not arisen. In reality, we have seen an increase of about 65% in the number of hospital admissions linked to alcohol over the five years to 2008-09, and that is why we think that reforms are required.

Julian Huppert: In the Minister's work on the Licensing Act, will he ensure that he looks carefully at the licensing of one-off and annual events, such as Strawberry Fair in my constituency, so that delays in determination, because of late interventions, for example, do not mean that the events have to be cancelled regardless of what is decided?

James Brokenshire: I am not familiar with the detail of the individual event to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but we are looking at temporary event notices and how community events are licensed, and if issues continue to prevail in relation to that situation no doubt he will write to me.

Police Numbers

David Crausby: How many police officers there were in England and Wales in March (a) 2010 and (b) 1997.

Nick Herbert: On 31 March 2010 there were 142,132 police officers, compared with 125,825 on 31 March 1997.

David Crausby: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he believe that the previous Labour Government spent too much on police officers and too little on the European Union budget?

Nick Herbert: I will not be drawn on the European budget, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman what the previous Government spent too much on-red tape that tied up police officers and wasted police time. When we had a position whereby police officers were spending more time on paperwork than on patrol, we knew that something had gone wrong: it was costly and it reduced police availability.

Anne McIntosh: Can the Minister tell us how we got to the sorry state in which warranted police officers are inside the building doing the police work and non-warranted officers-community support officers-are on the streets without the power of arrest?

Nick Herbert: We believe that police community support officers do an important job out in communities, and the fact that they do not have the power to arrest prevents them from being abstracted and builds confidence in neighbourhoods. However, we are determined to release police officers from the red tape that can keep them in police stations-for instance, by fully scrapping the stop form and reducing the burden of stop-and-search reporting, which will save 450,000 and 350,000 hours of police time respectively.

David Wright: West Mercia police authority tells me that it wants to protect record police numbers in Telford, and that one of the ways of reducing the administrative burden is to scrap the crazy, politicised idea of having elected police commissioners. Will the Minister save the money that he is going to spend, even if the budget is ring-fenced, and reallocate it to police forces for front-line policing?

Nick Herbert: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the policy of increasing the direct accountability of police authorities was proposed twice by the previous Government, who backed down from that proposal in the face of opposition? We are determined to see it through, because we want to exchange bureaucratic accountability for democratic accountability and help to get police officers where they are needed-on the streets.

Immigration Rules (UK Science Base)

Jo Swinson: What representations she has received from scientific organisations on the likely effects on the UK's science base of proposed changes to the immigration rules.

Theresa May: Our recent consultation on the immigration system fully involved scientific organisations, which have underlined the importance of being able to recruit the best scientists from around the world. I am aware of the case of the Beatson institute in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I can assure her that the UK Border Agency is looking closely at this and related cases.

Jo Swinson: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. She refers to the Beatson institute, which is a world-class cancer research facility that needs to attract the very best scientists in their field, regardless of their nationality. Previously it required about five tier 2 visas every year; that has been cut to just one under the new regime, so I welcome the fact that the issue will be looked at. Does she recognise the damage that could be caused to the Beatson, and to other scientific institutions, as a result of the unintended consequences of the immigration cap, and will she look again at whether an exemption could be made for science and research?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising that the UK Border Agency will look at the very real case that has been presented by the Beatson institute in relation to its particular requirements. We have a commitment, as a coalition Government, to reduce net migration into this country. I believe that it is important that we do that, but do it a way that will ensure that we can truly attract the brightest and the best into this country to do the valuable work that they do in places such as the Beatson institute.

Andrew Miller: I presume that there must have been some joined-up thinking in the Government on this matter. Will the Home Secretary therefore publish the cross-departmental analysis that brings together the impact on our science base and competitiveness of Lord Browne's report, the comprehensive spending review, cuts in departmental science, and the immigration cap?

Theresa May: As the hon. Gentleman has an interest in these matters, he will be aware that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has made efforts to protect the spending in relation to research on science. In looking at how we introduce our immigration cap, we will be making efforts to ensure that institutes and universities that require access to truly the brightest and the best are able to have it.

Immigration

Stephen Mosley: How many immigrants entered the UK in the most recent period for which figures are available.

Damian Green: A total of 528,000 long-term migrants entered the UK in 2009, according to the most recent figures from the international passenger survey. Of these, 437,000 were non-UK nationals. IPS figures do not include asylum seekers, those who have arrived from Northern Ireland, and those who change their original intentions and therefore alter their length of stay. Final detailed figures for 2009 will be published on 25 November.

Stephen Mosley: I understand that my hon. Friend has recently been to Heathrow to see our front-line border controls in action. Will he give the House his assessment of the quality of our current systems to detect illegal entry into the UK at the first port of call?

Damian Green: We do have a comprehensive border protection framework, provided not just by the UK Border Agency but by the police and other agencies. The whole House will recognise that there will be an increase in passenger journeys and freight volume, and in the use of ever more sophisticated technologies by those who have malicious intent of either illegal immigration or, even worse, terrorism. That is one reason why we are setting up a new border police command within the new national crime agency, which will enhance our existing capacity to protect our borders.

Phil Woolas: I thank the Minister for that straightforward answer. On 27 February, he told the House in relation to border control that we would become increasingly dependent on technology. In table A.6 in the spending review document, we see that there is to be a 49% reduction in capital investment in the Home Office's budget. Is he confident that he has the resources to provide the kit needed to protect our borders at airports and ports from illegal immigration and, given the events of the past few days, from potentially dangerous weapons and other attacks?

Damian Green: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being appointed to my old job by the Leader of the Opposition. I did it for four and a half years and I can say with complete sincerity that I hope he does it for even longer.
	Yes is the answer to the very serious question that the hon. Gentleman asks. He has been intimately involved in this subject for some years, so he will be pleased to know that the e-Borders system will continue, I hope in an improved way, under our new arrangements, and that other areas of capital spending such as the integrated casework project will also continue so that we use technology and the experience of our border officers to keep our borders safe.

Newport Passport Office

Jessica Morden: What consultation her Department has undertaken on the future of the Newport Passport Office.

Damian Green: On 19 October, the Identity and Passport Service began a formal 90-day consultation period with the trade unions on the future of the passport application processing centre at Newport. In addition, as the hon. Lady knows, I have had meetings with her and the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), the leader of Newport city council and the Secretary of State for Wales.

Jessica Morden: Will the Minister reassure me that the consultation on the future of Newport passport office is truly a consultation, in that he is genuinely listening to the concerns of people in Wales, including the 17,000 who have now signed the  South Wales Argus petition on the future of the office and its staff?

Damian Green: I am happy to give the hon. Lady that assurance. She has quite rightly made her position perfectly clear in defending her constituents' jobs, and I would expect no less of her. I hope that she can help me correct the misunderstanding that has been put about that Wales is losing its passport office. It simply is not. The passport office delivering passports to people in Wales will remain in Newport.

Paul Flynn: Was the Minister impressed yesterday when the Conservative Assembly Member Darren Millar said on television that the Welsh Conservatives in the National Assembly were united in their opposition to the closure of the Newport passport office and the Government's proposal? Will he provide an assurance that he will re-examine the matter, to ensure that cuts are made evenly across the United Kingdom and not concentrated in Newport?

Damian Green: As I just said to the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), anticipating the hon. Gentleman's question, the passport office in Newport is not being closed. It is a simple untruth to say that it is. The passport office will remain open. Some 47,000 people a year use it, and they are very important to the economy of Newport. I have been told that in no uncertain terms by the Secretary of State for Wales. I am pleased that we are able to keep that passport office open, not just for those who will continue to work there but for the economy of Newport city centre.

Deportation Services (Private Companies)

Greg Mulholland: What recent representations she has received on the regulation of private companies contracted to provide deportation services; and if she will make a statement.

Damian Green: All detention and escorting services provided by private sector companies are subject to internal and external oversight. Contracted staff are vetted carefully by the Home Office as part of their accreditation to work as detention custody officers or escorts, and services are monitored by UK Border Agency officials and the independent monitoring board and through announced and unannounced inspections by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons.

Greg Mulholland: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Of course, it is part of a functioning immigration system sometimes to remove foreign nationals who no longer have a right to stay. Nevertheless, that has to be done in a regularised and humane way. What plans does my hon. Friend have to limit and regulate the use of force as part of the accountability that he rightly talks about?

Damian Green: As I have explained in answer to previous questions, there is already significant regulation. Indeed, as I have just said, there is quite rightly a large number of checks, and the people who escort those who have no right to be in this country and who therefore have to be removed do need to be checked. Baroness O'Loan published a report into the issue in March 2010 and she found no evidence of systemic abuse by UK Border Agency escorts removing individuals from the UK. I am glad that that was true then and I am determined to make sure it continues to be true in the future.

Immigration

Bob Stewart: How many immigrants entered the UK in the most recent period for which figures are available.

Damian Green: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Bob Stewart: One of the main problems facing the immigration system has been the abuse of student visas. What plans have the Government to tackle that?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend points up one of the many problems with the immigration system. I point him particularly to student visas issued at below-degree level. We often think of student visas as being about the brightest and the best from around the world coming to our universities. Everyone in the House will welcome that, and they will want it to continue and our university sector to flourish. The problems have often come at sub-degree level with bogus students who do not have the appropriate qualifications or with bogus colleges. Both of those routes need to be stamped out, which is why, along with proposing a limit on work routes, we are working hard to bring forward proposals on the student route, precisely to stamp out the abuse that my hon. Friend is rightly worried about.

Topical Questions

Jane Ellison: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Theresa May: The Home Office continues to prioritise the counter-terrorism elements of policing. The national security strategy and the strategic defence and security review published two weeks ago will deliver a step change in Britain's ability to protect its security and advance its interests in the world. To meet the real and growing threat identified from cyber-attack, £650 million of new funding has been allocated to a cross-Government programme to enhance Britain's cyber-security. While I speak about the Department's responsibilities, I should perhaps explain for the avoidance of doubt that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), who has responsibility for equalities and criminal information, has not been able to answer a question today because she has lost her voice.

Jane Ellison: Another real and growing threat for many of us, especially those with urban constituencies, is the use and abuse of dogs as weapons. That is a real problem, which is often associated with gang activity. It is clearly an animal welfare issue, and Battersea dogs and cats home in my constituency has long been a voice on policy on the issue. However, it is also a crime and policing challenge. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on how Home Office Ministers are working with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs following that Department's recent consultation on dangerous dogs?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising an important issue. It is particularly important for her constituency, for obvious reasons, as she said. The Home Office is reviewing the issue of antisocial behaviour and the tools and powers that need to be made available to deal with it. It is also dealing with Departments across Whitehall, including DEFRA. DEFRA will respond to the previous Government's consultation on dangerous dogs, looking at issues such as dog licensing and wider issues such as breed-specific bans, once the Home Office has published our proposals on antisocial behaviour.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. I hope that the Under-Secretary recovers her voice before very long. We wish her better.

David Hanson: Does the Home Secretary agree with the views of the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on control orders? Having now had five months in office, does she accept that those of us who exercised such powers on behalf of the Home Office when we were in government did so because we tried to secure the safety of the British people, and we were, indeed, right to do so?

Theresa May: The prime responsibility of any Government is to keep people safe, and we are very conscious of that. The counter-terrorism legislation review is continuing. No final decisions have been taken on any aspects of that review, but, of course, I have undertaken to inform the House when the review is complete and when the answers to the questions that have been posed are available.

Matthew Offord: Following comments by my local police commander, my constituents in the Barnet neighbourhood watch, ably led by Maureen West, have expressed concerns to me about the ring-fencing rule for safer neighbourhood teams and the impact of possible further cuts as a result of the Government tackling the economic deficit. What assurance can the Minister give me that the reduction in the police family will not lead to a reduction in the police presence on the streets of my constituency?

Nick Herbert: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no need for a reduction in neighbourhood policing. Many police forces up and down the country are making a commitment to maintain neighbourhood policing by finding savings in the back office and collaborating, and through better procurement and saving money.

Andrew Gwynne: We all want to see our police officers out on the beat more, but how will cutting police staff who often free-up police officers from administrative tasks help with that?

Theresa May: One of the crucial things that we are doing, as we indicated earlier, is cutting the administrative tasks that need to be done by cutting the extreme levels of bureaucracy that were introduced to policing by his Labour Government.

Julian Smith: Can my right hon. Friend reassure us that the new immigration cap will reflect the need for businesses to recruit international, highly skilled migrants and to transfer international employees internally? Will she make that process as easy and unbureaucratic as possible?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important issue of the impact of immigration on businesses. As we consider how to introduce the immigration cap, we will take on board comments made by business and its requirements in relation to the operation of the system. However, one thing that we have found recently is that nearly one third of those who arrived via the tier 1 route-the brightest and the best highly skilled migrants-did not take on highly skilled jobs. That is something to which we should pay attention.

Phil Wilson: The Independent Safeguarding Authority in my constituency employs about 250 people. Can the Home Secretary let me know what their future is? What is the future of the authority under this Government?

Theresa May: The Government have a commitment to ensure that we bring the vetting and barring scheme down to common-sense levels. Many people are concerned that the scheme introduced by the previous Labour Government actually reduced people's willingness to volunteer and to do good in their communities. We are currently reviewing vetting and barring. The impact on the ISA will come out of that review.

Charlie Elphicke: May I ask about border security? Illegal entry at Dover has fallen 18% in the last year. We will no doubt hear more about the excellent work of those who keep our country safe and secure in the statement on aviation security later, but will the Minister congratulate those who keep our country safe?

Damian Green: I am happy to echo my hon. Friend's congratulations to his constituents at Dover, and indeed to immigration officers at ports, airports and inland ports all around the country. They work tirelessly-day and night-to keep our borders as safe as possible. Like him, I welcome the significant reduction in the amount of illegal immigration through Dover over the past few months.

David Winnick: We all look forward to the review on anti-terrorism legislation, but is it not important that murderous fanatics-another indication of what they are like was given last week-and the enemies of all humanity do not force us to give up long-held, traditional liberties in this country? The sort of changes that the Home Secretary mentioned earlier will hopefully come about despite the current terrorist danger.

Theresa May: The coalition Government are very aware of the need to rebalance our national security requirements and our civil liberties. That is precisely why we have undertaken the review of counter-terrorism legislation. As I indicated in a previous answer, the results of that review will be brought to the House when they are available, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are aware that we need to ensure that we keep the country safe so that people can exercise those ancient freedoms and civil liberties.

Laura Sandys: Will the Home Secretary join me in welcoming the shadow Home Secretary's conversion to our policy of putting antisocial behaviour orders behind us? The shadow Home Secretary said:
	"I want to live in the kind of society that puts Asbos behind us."

James Brokenshire: I hope that the shadow Home Secretary will remember his original comments, and will therefore accept that the current tools and powers for dealing with antisocial behaviour are overly bureaucratic and do not work effectively. That is why we are currently reviewing them to ensure that all local agencies have a toolkit that provides a strong deterrent, and is quick, practical and easy to use.

Jack Dromey: The Home Secretary was reluctant yesterday to confirm the consequences of Government cuts for the police service. Will she give a straight answer to that question today, and confirm that 2,000 jobs will go in the west midlands police service, including those of 400 police officers in Birmingham-40 for each of Birmingham's 10 constituencies -and does she share my constituents' fears that, as police numbers fall, crime will go up?

Theresa May: The fight against crime is not simply a matter of the number of police officers, but about how effectively they are deployed and what they are doing. What the Government are doing by releasing police officers from the bureaucracy imposed by the last Labour Government will make them freer and more available to be out there on the streets doing the job the public want them to do.

John Glen: In 2004, my constituent Stephen Ings's son and ex-wife were murdered by an illegal immigrant, Alex George. Will the Minister meet me and my constituent to explain the decision to offer a deferred conditional discharge to Mr George while his appeal against deportation is heard?

Damian Green: I and my ministerial colleagues are aware of the correspondence between my hon. Friend and the UK Border Agency about this case. I understand perfectly-as the whole House will-how distressing and awful the case must be for his constituent, and of course I will happily meet him, and his constituent and his family to discuss the matter further.

Mary Glindon: Will the Home Secretary join me in wishing Northumbria police warm congratulations on the opening of the new area command at the north Tyneside headquarters, especially given that it was built with money from the Labour Government?

Theresa May: I rather hope I might at some stage be given an invitation to visit the new area command. May I say, however, given that Northumbria has been mentioned, that I was pleased to speak to Sue Sim recently, following the difficult time that Northumbria police had earlier this year in dealing with the case of Raoul Moat, to congratulate her on how she and her force dealt with that case?

Lorely Burt: Many international companies contemplating investment in the UK are being put off by the fact that inter-company transfers are defined as coming under the immigration cap. Inter-company transfers mean more jobs for British workers, and they do not stay in the United Kingdom. Will Ministers look at the rules placing inter-company transfers under the immigration cap, otherwise we run the risk of saying, "Yes, we are open for business, but you cannot come in"?

Damian Green: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend and the companies in her constituency that, under the interim cap operating now, inter-company transfers are not covered-they are outside the cap-so there is no reason for any business to be worried about that now. Obviously, for the permanent cap that will come in from next April, we are considering the best way to enable businesses to operate successfully in the future.

Alun Michael: Will the Minister accept that there is deep unease within the IT industry about the possibility that the focus on numbers will reduce the flexibility of companies to bring people in and out of the country to meet the needs of what is an extremely flexible and internationally important industry?

Damian Green: I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is an important international industry. I hope, however, that he will recognise two countervailing pressures here. There is the pressure from international business, which wants to move people around, but there is also a lot of perfectly reasonable pressure from trained British IT workers, who have done everything that society has asked of them-got the right sort of degree, gone into the right sort of business-but are finding it increasingly difficult to find jobs. We should listen to their voices as well.

Mark Pawsey: Many of my constituents are concerned that the inquiry desk at Rugby police station is being closed between the hours of 8 pm and midnight. Although I recognise the pressure on police budgets caused by Labour's economic mismanagement, does the Minister agree that this decision should be reconsidered?

Nick Herbert: What is important is how visible and available the police are. There are innovative things that they can do instead of necessarily keeping police stations open at times when very few people visit them, such as setting up shop in shared premises in supermarkets. My hon. Friend should talk to his chief constable about such ideas.

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I genuinely and un-begrudgingly thank the Policing Minister for recently visiting my constituency and seeing the award-winning group of police community support officers and police officers at the Caerau station? Thank you very much indeed. However, will he pay a return visit if we find that that team, or any others in my constituency, is broken up because of the police cuts coming down the line?

Nick Herbert: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I will be returning to the force area this week, although not to his constituency. I spoke to his chief constable a few days ago, and he assured me that by making savings, there would be protection for the visible and available policing in the streets that the hon. Gentleman's constituents want to see.

Nigel Adams: Is the Minister aware that a pioneering partnership between North Yorkshire police and the local community in Sherburn in Elmet in my constituency has seen the public inquiry desk at the village police station reopen? The desk is manned completely by volunteers. Does he agree that this is a great example of the big society in action? Will he join me in congratulating the local volunteers and North Yorkshire police-

Mr Speaker: Order. We are all very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Nick Herbert: My hon. Friend might have noticed that he just got a nod of approval from the Prime Minister. Helping to keep police stations and front desks open is a very good use of volunteers. There may be very few visitors, but that visibility is important, and there are many other ways in which the police can maintain such a presence in their areas.

European Council

David Cameron: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
	Clearly the whole country has been focused this weekend on the terrorist threat, and the Home Secretary will make a full statement after this. However, I want to put on record my thanks, and the thanks of everyone in this House, to all those involved in the international police and intelligence operation, whose efforts clearly prevented the terrorists from killing and maiming many innocent people, whether here or elsewhere in the world. The fact that the device was being carried from Yemen to the United Arab Emirates, Germany and Britain, en route to America, shows the interest of the whole world in coming together to deal with this. While we are rightly engaged in Afghanistan to deny the terrorists there, the threat from the Arabian peninsula, and from Yemen in particular, has grown. So as well as the immediate steps, which the Home Secretary will outline, it is clear that we must take every possible step to work with our partners in the Arab world to cut out the terrorist cancer that lurks in the Arabian peninsula.
	Let me turn to last week's European Council. The Council's main business was going to be economic governance in the light of the serious problems that the eurozone has faced. However, I was clear that we could not talk about the need for fiscal rigour in the EU's member states without also talking about the need for fiscal rigour in the EU budget, both next year and for the future, so we ensured that the EU budget was also on the agenda. Let me go through both issues. First, on the budget for 2011, from the outset in May, we wanted a freeze. We pressed for a freeze, and in July we voted for a freeze, seeking to block the 2.9% proposed by the presidency. Finland, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Austria all voted with us. Unfortunately, we were just short of the numbers needed for a blocking minority, so in August the Council agreed a 2.9% increase.
	Then in October, the matter went to the European Parliament, which voted for around a 6% increase. That was the frankly outrageous proposal with which we were confronted at this European Council. Now, normally what happens in these situations is that you take the position of the EU Council and that of the EU Parliament, and there is a negotiation that ends up splitting the difference. Indeed, that is precisely what happened last year. So before the Council started, we began building an alliance to take a different approach and to insist on the 2.9%. I made phone calls to my counterparts in Sweden, France and Germany, among others, and then continued to press the case during the Council. Twelve other Heads of State took that approach, and we issued a joint letter that makes it clear that a 6% increase is
	"especially unacceptable at a time when we are having to take difficult decisions at national level to control public expenditure".
	Furthermore, the joint letter goes on to say that
	"we are clear that we cannot accept any more than"
	the 2.9% increase being proposed by the Council.
	Let me explain what this means. Either the Council and the Parliament now have to agree to the 2.9%, or there will be deadlock, in which case the EU will have to live on a repeat of last year's budget settlement handed out in twelfths over the next 12 months, an outcome that we would be perfectly content with. Next, and more importantly, Britain secured a significant breakthrough on a fundamental principle for the longer term. As well as the individual budget negotiations for 2011, 2012 and 2013, there is also a big negotiation about to happen for the future funding of the EU over the period between 2014 and 2020. We clearly want to do all we can to make the negotiations go the right way, and what we agreed at the Council was, I think, a big step forward. The European Commission was wholly opposed to it, but the Council agreed that
	"at the same time as fiscal discipline is reinforced in the European Union, it is essential that the European Union budget and the forthcoming multi-annual Financial Framework reflect the consolidation efforts being made by Member States to bring deficit and debt onto a more sustainable path."
	So from now on, the EU budget must reflect what we are doing in our own countries, and it is quite apparent that almost every country in Europe, like us, is seeing very tough spending settlements.
	This new principle applies to the 2012 and 2013 budgets, and to the crucial 2014 to 2020 EU spending framework. Just as countries have had to change their financial plans because of the crisis, so the EU must change its financial plans too. Mr Speaker, if you look at the published conclusions and language on the budget, they formed a prominent part even though it was not originally on the agenda. I think this is an important step forward.
	In my discussions with Chancellor Merkel at the weekend, we agreed to take forward some joint work to bring some transparency to the EU budget--salaries, allowances, grants. This work has just not been done properly in the past, and it is about time that citizens of the EU knew what the EU spends its money on. That is the spotlight that needs to be shone, and that is what we propose to do.
	On economic governance, there are basically two issues. First, there is Herman Van Rompuy's report from the taskforce on economic governance. This was set up after the sovereign debt crisis, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Treasury have been fully involved. Secondly, there is the additional proposal made by the Germans, and in principle agreed by the Council, for a limited treaty amendment focusing on putting the EU's temporary bail-out mechanism on to a permanent basis. Let me take each in turn. In Van Rompuy's report, there are some sensible proposals. For example, the eurozone clearly needs reinforced fiscal discipline to ensure its stability, and the crisis has shown that in a global economy early warning is clearly needed about imbalances between different countries.
	Let me be clear on one point about which there has been some debate: the question of surveillance. All member states, including the UK, have participated in surveillance for more than a decade. This is not a new framework. The report is clear, and the current framework remains broadly valid, but needs to be applied in a better and more consistent way. The report proposes new sanctions, but we have ensured that no sanctions, either existing or new, will apply to the UK. The report could not be clearer. It says that
	"strengthened enforcement measures need to be implemented for all EU Member States, except the UK as a consequence of Protocol 15 of the Treaty".
	That is our opt-out. It kept us out of the single currency; it kept us out of sanctions under the Maastricht treaty; and we have ensured that it keeps us out of any sanctions in the future.
	In addition to the issue of sanctions, a number of other concerns have been raised. Let me try to address each of them head on. First, will we have to present our budget to Europe before this House? No. Secondly, will we have to give Europe access to information for budgetary surveillance that is not similarly shared with organisations such as the International Monetary Fund or is publicly available on the internet? Again, the answer is no. Thirdly, will powers over our budget be transferred from Westminster to Brussels? Again, no.
	I turn to the proposal mentioned in the Council's conclusions for limited treaty amendment. We have established that any possible future treaty change, should it occur, would not affect the UK, and I would not agree to it if it did. The proposal to put the temporary bail-out mechanism on a permanent footing is important for the eurozone, and eurozone stability is important for the UK. Nearly half our trade is with the eurozone, and London is Europe's international financial centre.
	Let me be clear. Throughout this process, I have been focused on our national interest, and it is in our national interest that the eurozone should sort itself out. It is in our national interest that Europe should avoid being paralysed by another debt crisis, as it was with Greece in May, and it is absolutely in our national interest that Britain should not be drawn into having to help with any future bail-out. That is what we have secured.
	Let me turn briefly to the other business of the Council. On the G20, the Council discussed its priorities for the upcoming summit in Seoul. Again, our interests are clear. As an open trading nation, we want progress on Doha. This has been going for nearly a decade, and 2011 should be the year when we try to achieve a deal. We believe that the world has suffered from economic imbalances, so we want countries with fiscal deficits to deal with them, and countries with trade surpluses to look at structural and currency reforms. We recognise the importance of strengthening global financial stability, and that is why we support the recent Basel agreement on stronger banking regulations. We also want global institutions to be reformed to reflect the growth of emerging powers, so we will see through the work that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has led on the reform of IMF votes and board seats. Finally, on Cancun, we are committed to making progress towards a legally binding United Nations agreement.
	I believe that this Council demonstrates that it is perfectly possible to deliver for our national interest while protecting our national sovereignty. Tomorrow, the British and French Governments will sign new defence and security co-operation treaties, which will be laid before Parliament in the usual way. This follows the same principle: partnership, yes; giving away sovereignty, no. At this Council, Britain helped Europe to take the first vital steps towards bringing its finances under control. We prevented a crazy 6% rise in the EU budget next year, we ensured that the budget would reflect domestic spending cuts in all future years, and we protected the UK taxpayer from having to bail out eurozone countries that get themselves into trouble. There is a long way to go, but we have made a strong start. I commend this statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement? I also thank him for the briefing statement that he gave me on Saturday on the developments following the discovery of explosive materials, including those at East Midlands airport. I join him in thanking the security services, the police and others for the work that they do to protect innocent people here and abroad. I also want to assure him that he has the full support of the Opposition in his efforts to tackle terrorism and keep the nation safe.
	On Europe, Labour Members think that it is in the national interest for Britain to be strongly engaged in Europe on issues from terrorism to climate change, and from the global economy to human trafficking. We all know that the Prime Minister is in a slightly tricky predicament on Europe. He has his old friends and his new friends on the Front Bench. I want to tell him very sincerely that we are here to help him. We know that he held some pretty strong views on Europe in the past, but we are willing to ignore his previous convictions, just as long as he is as well.
	Let me start with the Council's conclusions on economic governance. We welcome any sensible proposals for greater co-operation to ensure economic stability across Europe. In principle, we also welcome the idea of putting in place clear arrangements for providing help to eurozone countries that get into trouble, rather than relying on an ad hoc approach. The Prime Minister is also right to say that eurozone countries should take financial responsibility when those circumstances arise. He was right to say in his statement that these new arrangements would not apply to Britain, but they might affect Britain. We have an interest in stability in the eurozone but also in supporting growth in what is our largest export market. Can he therefore assure the House that, as well as protecting Britain from those provisions, he will engage in discussions to ensure that the right balance is struck between the need for stability and the need for growth in the eurozone?
	In the context of these reforms, I do not think the Prime Minister made it clear in his statement whether, if proposals are made for treaty change as a result of the amendments, he is prepared to accept the changes without a referendum. He used to imply that if treaty change were ever back on the table, he would have a referendum, but he seems to have abandoned that position. Will he confirm that that is the case?
	The Prime Minister also used to imply that he would use the opportunity of treaty change to bring back the British opt-out on employment and social legislation. I think that is a pledge he made for this Parliament. Labour Members do not believe that this is a necessary or sensible course of action. He was silent on this issue during his statement. Can we therefore assume that his previous red lines on this issue were not raised by him at any time in these negotiations, and can he confirm that he does not intend to raise these red lines-or what were his red lines-in the coming months in the context of any possible treaty changes that might take place? Again, we will support him if he takes the right course.
	Secondly, on the G20 summit in Seoul, which will discuss the prospects for the world economy, the Prime Minister will know that an increase in trade accounts for almost half of the growth forecast that the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts for the United Kingdom next year. Can I ask what discussions were had at the European Council about the uncertainty in the world economy and how Europe plans to do its bit to ensure that economic demand is sustained?
	Thirdly, on the Cancun conference on climate change, I have to say-I think the Prime Minister will agree-that the prospects do not look bright for completing the unfinished work of Copenhagen. May I urge him on to show greater leadership on this issue- [Interruption.] Leadership, which is not just about some huskies, but is real leadership on this issue. Can he say what he will be doing personally to advance a deal on finance, which is a crucial precondition of progress and a key objective of the Cancun summit?
	Let me turn next to the EU budget. The Prime Minister has offered what we might call an interesting version of events. He confirmed that, in August, the 2.9% increase was put forward by the Council of Ministers and 20 countries voted for that-Britain was not one of them; it voted against that. The Prime Minister tells us in his statement today that "before the Council started, we began building an alliance to take a different approach"-different from the Parliament-"and insist on 2.9%". The question I ask the right hon. Gentleman is when he took that view. On 20 October, he told this House:
	"We have called for a cash freeze in the size of the EU budget for 2011 and we are working hard to make this case across Europe."-[ Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 938.]
	He was not saying that 2.9% had been agreed and that he had lowered his sights; he was telling us that he was still working for a freeze. Three days later he repeated this to the  Daily Mail-a reliable source:
	"We need to start working on trying to keep next year's budget down. It should be a freeze or a cut."
	That was his position at that time. So I have a simple question: when did the Prime Minister change his position on this issue? He certainly did not tell the House; he certainly did not tell the  Daily Mail-and one would have thought that he would have kept it informed. As far as we can gather, it was sleeves rolled up, full steam ahead and when it came to 2.9%, it was "fight them on the beaches". Now the Prime Minister has said that he changed his position.
	Now, the Prime Minister has agreed to 2.9%. What does he say about something he originally voted against? One would have thought that he might be slightly sheepish about this-but not a bit of it! He actually says that he has "succeeded quite spectacularly". If that is his view of spectacular success, I would hate to see what happens when things go wrong in his negotiations in Brussels.
	What about the letter that the Prime Minster brandished as having been signed by 13 member states, supporting 2.9%. I do not think that is a spectacular success. Twenty countries were supporting 2.9% in August, so this is seven fewer countries than were originally supporting that increase. The only big difference is that Britain, which used to be against the 2.9% increase, is now for it. Let me say to the Prime Minister, in words that my grandmother might have used, that I admire his chutzpah on this issue. Is not the truth about it that he wished he could come back and say "No, no, no", but in his case, it is a bit more like "No, maybe, oh, go on then, have your 2.9% after all."?
	What is the deeper truth about the Prime Minister's position? I have to say that I am disappointed in him, because he has fallen back into his old ways. It is more ludicrous grandstanding on Europe, which ends up proving futile and fooling no one. The Prime Minister said that he would provide for a referendum on Lisbon if there was an opportunity; he has abandoned that position. He said that he would repatriate powers; he has abandoned that position. He said that he would obtain a freeze in the EU budget; he has abandoned that position.
	The Prime Minister has obviously not learned the lesson, because he left the summit bragging again, saying that he was a Euroscpetic. When will he recognise that anti-European bluster and PR are no substitute for a decent, engaged European policy? He should be leading the way on climate change, signing the directive on human trafficking, and working with European Governments to sustain demand in the global economy. The Prime Minister may have abandoned some of his previous convictions, but his rehabilitation on Europe has a long way to go.

David Cameron: If mine was chutzpah, that was brass neck.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked how I was getting on with my new friends and my old friends. Let me put it in a way that he may understand: we are just one big happy family. It is brotherly love on this side of the House; it really is. The problem is that we are living with the decision of the right hon. Gentleman's old friend, Tony Blair, who gave away £8 billion of rebate and received nothing in return.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would ensure stability in the eurozone. Of course we want to do that, as I said in my statement. He said that this did not affect Britain in terms of the treaty change, and he was quite right about that. He asked whether this should lead to a referendum. The point is that we are not passing any powers from Britain to Brussels: this limited treaty change does not affect the United Kingdom. However, I cannot take a lecture on referendums from someone who could have provided a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, but failed to do so.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked what we were getting in return. We are getting progress on the budget, which we never saw in a month of Sundays under a Labour Government. Let me say something about the issue of the budget, and the points that he made. Let us contrast the position now with what happened last year under a Labour Government. Last year under a Labour Government- [Interruption.] It is very instructive to look at what happened last year and what happened this year.
	Last year the European Council voted for a 3.8% increase. The Labour Government supported it. The European Parliament proposed a 9.8% increase. The Council then agreed a 6% increase, and the Labour Government supported it. That is the difference between last year and this year. Last year we had a feeble Government who would not stand up for Britain; this time we have a Government who will.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. A great many Members wish to catch my eye, and there is another important statement to follow, followed by business that I suspect will be of considerable interest to the House. Brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike is essential.

Peter Tapsell: As it appears that the treaties of the European Union can be changed on the insistence of a German Chancellor, is it possible to give a British Prime Minister the same opportunities, thus enabling him to give his country the pledge of the referendum that was promised to them? Is that so, or not?

David Cameron: If there were any prospect of a passage of power from Britain to Brussels, we should have a referendum. That is not just my word: we are going to legislate to put it into place. But the question that we must answer here-this goes directly to what my right hon. Friend has said-is, "What is it in Britain's national interest to try to insist on at this time?" In my view it is the budget, and the amount of money that goes from Britain to Brussels, into which we should be putting our efforts. That is what I did, and that is what I am going to go on doing.

Denis MacShane: May I welcome the Prime Minister to the club of Euro-pragmatism? He has said nothing today with which I can greatly disagree. Will he answer two questions, however? First, will he confirm that if the final budget deal is above 2.9%, Britain will not seek to veto it? Secondly, will the proposed treaty change happen under the so-called passerelle clause of the Lisbon treaty?

David Cameron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his endorsement-wherever they come from, they are always welcome. The point about the budget approach is that 13 countries have put their signature to a letter saying they will not accept anything over 2.9%. They will, I believe, all stick to their word, and we will insist on this so that we either get 2.9%, agreed between Parliament and the Council, or we get deadlock, in which case the budget is frozen at last year's level.
	The final decisions on the proposed treaty change will be taken at the December summit. That is likely to be under the simplified revision procedure so there is not a parliamentary convention. The key point here is to be absolutely clear that this is going to be a few lines that are about putting in place what is a temporary bail-out mechanism and making it a permanent bail-out mechanism. The key point for the House to hold on to is that this does not affect the UK, except inasmuch as we want the eurozone to sort itself out.

Charles Kennedy: Given today's lunchtime praise of the Prime Minister by Miles Templeman of the Institute of Directors, and in particular his observation that the Prime Minister's greater European sensitivity, which the IOD welcomed, must be down to the presence of Liberal Democrats in his coalition Government, may I assure the Prime Minister, speaking as one long-standing pro-European now to another, that as long as he maintains such constructive engagement he will deserve, and I am sure will receive, solid support?

David Cameron: Said without a hint of mischief. I believe the national interest right now is all about- [Interruption.] I heard that, I say to whoever said the G word. The national interest is about restricting our contributions to the EU. We are making difficult decisions here, and that is what we should be pushing for in Europe. What was encouraging about this European Council was what a strong alliance we could build with others at the same time as protecting ourselves by preventing any of this treaty change from having an effect on the UK.

Nigel Dodds: The Prime Minister says that from now on the EU budget must reflect what we are doing in our own countries, so can he give us a cast-iron guarantee that in 2012, 2013 and thereafter there will be cuts to the EU budget, or can he use more reassuring words?

David Cameron: What I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that, for the first time, the European Council's conclusions set out the new principle that increases or changes to the EU budget should reflect what we are doing in our nation states. That has never been put in place before, which is why the Commission opposed it so much. The principle is that what is happening across Europe must be reflected in the EU budget; that is the key. I will be pressing for the best possible outcome in 2012 and 2013, and as Britain is a net contributor the best possible outcome for us is that we do not make these increases in our net contribution.

Malcolm Rifkind: Does the Prime Minister agree that the experience of the Labour Government in respect of the European budget was a failure to reconcile net income with gross habits, and will he also confirm that his success in putting together this blocking coalition will save the British taxpayer half a billion pounds?

David Cameron: My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Every percentage increase we save is equivalent to well over £100 million. The failure there has been-for a long time, frankly-over this issue is twofold: a failure to take the budget issue seriously enough and, secondly, a failure to have transparency and therefore to have the information about the EU budget out there so that citizens in Europe can really complain about the inflated salaries and allowances. Let me give just one example: civil servants who have been in Brussels for 30 years are still paid generous expatriate allowances. That is the sort of excess that we have got to deal with.

Gisela Stuart: The Prime Minister seems to have great faith in protocol 15. I also noted that he did not really answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), and I am beginning to wonder something: has the Prime Minister ever actually read the Lisbon treaty from page one to page-to the end. If so, when?

David Cameron: One of the many contributions to public life that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) made after making that remark is that all future Front Benchers, probably on either side of the House, will carefully read every treaty and get to the end.

William Cash: Given that response, will the Prime Minister confirm that the presidency conclusions, to which he has referred, do in fact endorse the EU taskforce report, which clearly states that there will be "a new legal framework" for further surveillance and powers for economic governance, which cover both the eurozone and the EU, including us, and, moreover, that any EU treaty imposes legal rights and obligations on all the member states? Why, therefore, did my right hon. Friend reckon that, together, these do not affect the UK, that
	"it isn't going to make any difference to us"
	and that, on that basis, there would be, as he put it, no referendum?

David Cameron: This is a very serious point and we probably require a longer exchange than is possible from the Dispatch Box. I say to my hon. Friend, who follows this very closely, that we have to differentiate two important things-the first is the Van Rompuy report and the second is the very limited treaty change that is being proposed by the Germans and now, in principle, endorsed by the Council-because the treaty change is really focused simply on the issue of putting a temporary bail-out mechanism on to a permanent basis.
	On the Van Rompuy report, the paragraph to which my hon. Friend refers is paragraph 34, which talks about "macro-economic surveillance"-something that has happened for more than 10 years in the European Union. It is defined in paragraph 35 and paragraph 39 is very clear that the sanctions it talks about refer only to euro area members. I would also draw his attention to paragraph 4, which states that all of this is looked at
	"within the existing legal framework of the European Union."
	That is important. The other paragraph that I think is vitally important is paragraph 18, which says-I quoted it earlier-that
	"strengthened enforcement measures need to be implemented for all EU Member States, except the UK as a consequence of Protocol 15 of the Treaty".
	That is what gives us the protection. We read these things very carefully.

Mike Gapes: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his consistency? In 2005, he won the leadership of his party by being the most Eurosceptic candidate; in 2007, he made a very clear commitment to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty; and now he has capitulated on his previous position of a freeze. Can I take it that public sector workers facing a freeze will now get a 2.9% increase?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman, who is very experienced in this House, has clearly not met my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary. I am sure that I can arrange for them to spend some quality time together.

Richard Ottaway: I congratulate the Prime Minister on playing a very difficult hand at the summit. Does he agree that seeing off the European Parliament's budget, securing our opt-out on economic governance and ensuring that future budgets will reflect a nation's spending cuts all adds up to a good day's work?

David Cameron: May I thank my hon. Friend? I do think this principle that what happens in terms of the EU budget should reflect what happens to member states' budgets is an important principle. Of course, as we speak today, it is just words in a conclusions text, but many of the things that my hon. Friends and I have worried about over the years have been words in a conclusions text-a little opening that people who want more and more of the European Union push their force through. We have now got a wedge, if you like, that we can push on at all subsequent negotiations: that the European Council has accepted that what is good for nation states is good for the European Union's budget.

Hywel Williams: What discussions did the Prime Minister have with the Council on convergence funding and what are the implications of the budgetary settlement on that funding?

David Cameron: We did not have detailed conversations about the elements of the budget. Clearly those countries that are net recipients were opposed to what I was proposing, and obviously the tighter the budget, the less money there is for the things within that budget, but within the budget we should always fight for a good deal and we should also make sure that depressed parts of the UK get access to that money. But when you look at what the European Parliament was putting forward for its 6%, you find that it included, for instance, a massive amount more for dairy farming, so it was not actually connected to getting the European economy moving.

Edward Leigh: What sort of world are MEPs living in? At a time when everybody else is tightening their belts, these people are awarding themselves ever more generous allowances and salaries, despite the fact that most people do not even know who they are. Will my right hon. Friend suggest to his friends on the Council that we export IPSA to the European Parliament?

David Cameron: That is an idea of pure genius. I am not sure that even the brilliant simultaneous translation that is available would really enable me to explain IPSA in all its complexities. There is a serious point, however, and this is where transparency matters. I remember, when the whole problem of allowances, pay, pensions and everything broke in this place, looking again at the European Parliament's rules. They are not transparent enough and we need to sort that out. As I say, when it comes to the European budget, transparency, which is going to be a great weapon in local government and central Government, can be such a weapon in Europe, too.

Tony Lloyd: The Prime Minister, of course, will not have been able to see the faces of his colleagues behind him when he made his statement. In terms of the big happy family that he commands, does he think that he still has the support of the majority of Conservative MPs?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

David Cameron: rose-

Alan Haselhurst: Instead of the passing satisfaction that might be gained from a "toys out of pram" approach, is not my right hon. Friend's achievement the fact that we have a first pragmatic step towards getting a grip on the EU budget, and will other steps follow?

David Cameron: It is important that we build alliances for what we are trying to achieve. I would say to all my right hon. and hon. Friends that there are many things that we do not like about the European Union's development and many things that we would like to change. We must pick our battles and our fights. The important battle to have is the one over the budget and it is important to try to build alliances for that. There is strong support from other countries from not just the donor countries but those that are making difficult decisions at home and recognise that it is simply insupportable to see one budget going up and up when they are having to cut things back in their domestic economies.

Tom Watson: At what we now know as the Prime Minister's "delicious" press conference, he questioned the number of BBC correspondents sent over to report on his triumph. Who did he want to send home the most-Nick Robinson or Michael Crick?

David Cameron: I probably should not have used the word "delicious". I was just making the point, as we were talking about cuts, that the BBC seemed to be extremely well represented. I do not think that Nick Robinson was there, but it is always a joy to see Michael Crick.

James Arbuthnot: On the defence relationship with France to which my right hon. Friend referred, is he aware that I have forgiven the French for taking off the head of my great-great-great-great grandfather at Trafalgar? Does he agree that the treaty that he will be signing tomorrow with President Sarkozy needs to contain real concrete arrangements to improve defence co-operation between our two countries?

David Cameron: I am extremely glad that my right hon. Friend has forgiven the French, as I think he is joining me for lunch with President Sarkozy tomorrow-it might have been a little bit frosty. This is important, because Britain and France share a real interest. We have similarly sized and structured armed forces, we both have a nuclear deterrent and we both want to enhance our sovereign capability while being more efficient at the same time. This treaty will set out that in many areas-such as the A400M, the future strategic tanker aircraft, the issue of carriers and more besides-we can work together and enhance our capabilities while saving money at the same time.

Graham Stringer: Local democracy in this country is facing 28% cuts over the next four years. That would be a good starting point, I think, as a target for the EU budget. What level does the Prime Minister think that the EU budget should be set at, ideally?

David Cameron: Obviously, we had to do the best we could with the 2011 budget. We now have the issues of 2012 and 2013 before we go into the 2014-2020 perspective. Many countries will be arguing for increases-the recipient countries will fight very hard for them and the European Commission, which always wants to see greater competences and more powers, will fight for them. Those of us who are doing the paying will have to unite and fight very hard. The better we can do in 2012 and 2013, the lower the baseline we will work off for the 2014-2020 perspective. That is where we will be pushing extremely hard.

Conor Burns: It is some 16 years since the European Court of Auditors last signed off the accounts. In welcoming our right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher's return to home and health this afternoon, may I invite the Prime Minister to consult her regarding what instrument he could use in place of the handbag to sort out this mess?

David Cameron: I am sure that the whole House will welcome Baroness Thatcher's better health and return from hospital. The deal she achieved at Fontainebleau all those years ago has saved this country £88 billion and it will be extremely important to defend that abatement as we go into the 2014-2020 negotiation. I am sure that she will be looking carefully to make sure that her legacy is assured.

Dennis Skinner: After such a miserable failure on the budget freeze, did the Prime Minister console himself by thanking the Italians for building British ships such as the Queen Elizabeth or by congratulating the Germans on winning a contract to occupy the channel tunnel? How much time did he spend hawking around Royal Mail to his new European pals?

David Cameron: The answer is no, I did not do any of that. I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. Trade between European countries is extremely worth while: just as we sell important goods and services to Germany and France, so they sell to us. I would have thought that even he and the dinosaurs opposite would think that was a good thing.

David Nuttall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Given that the proposed treaty change apparently will not affect the UK in any way, should we not simply leave it to the countries in the eurozone, which will be affected, to sign any new treaty? Should we not keep out of it?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but I think the best option for the UK, because this is a very limited treaty change about making this temporary mechanism permanent and because it is in Britain's interests, as we do not want a eurozone that goes kaput and we do not want to have to join in bail-outs-that is what this is about-it is better that it takes place through existing operations. Also, as I said in the statement, we have to bear in mind the role of London and Britain as a key financial centre. That will be strengthened by what is being done rather than by any alternative.

Ian Davidson: The Prime Minister's visit to Brussels cost British taxpayers £450 million or so. Where is that money coming from and would it not have been better spent on avoiding some of the cuts in services for ordinary hard-working families that his Government are putting through?

David Cameron: If we had taken the approach of the previous Government, we would have just said, "Never mind the increase suggested by the Council or the increase suggested by the Parliament, let's just let them come to some sort of deal and Britain will cough up," but we said, "No, let's restrict this to the very minimum it could be." That is not an approach that the previous Government took, but I am proud to say it is one that we took.

Peter Bone: As one pro-European who has concerns about the European Union to another, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the real problem with the budget is the £17.5 billion extra that we are going to pay over the next four years because that lot opposite gave up Mrs Thatcher's rebate?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the negotiations in 2005, we were told repeatedly in the House by Tony Blair, standing here at the Dispatch Box, that he would consider giving up the rebate only if he got a proper deal on common agricultural policy reform. Do hon. Members remember that? In the end, all we got was a review of the CAP. That teaches us the very important lesson that we have to halt it.

Kate Hoey: Did the Prime Minister get a chance to discuss with any of the leaders privately or publicly the ludicrous European Union embassies being set up all over the world at huge expense? Does he realise that the public do not want that, but want well-staffed British embassies? Can we do anything about it, and is there any chance of a referendum in the next five years on whether we stay in or go out?

David Cameron: I do not believe in an in-out referendum for many reasons. I think we are better off in the European Union-we have to fight our corner very hard-but I would grant a referendum if there were any proposed transfer of powers from Westminster to Brussels. On the European External Action Service, the hon. Lady knows that we opposed the Lisbon treaty, that we thought the creation of the EEAS was a mistake and that we have pushed as hard as we can within Europe to keep its costs under control. There is an argument that because of the combination of the previous High Representative and Foreign Minister roles, the posts and the budget should cost less, and we push that case as hard as we can.

Menzies Campbell: As another of the Prime Minister's new friends, may I remind him that in 2010 family life takes many different forms in this country? May I also commend his pragmatism in relation to defence co-operation with the French, which he no doubt discussed with President Sarkozy over the weekend? If it is successful in conventional co-operation, what are the prospects for similar co-operation in nuclear matters?

David Cameron: I think there are prospects for our working together in this area, not least the French investment in civil nuclear power that is going to take place in the UK. There are opportunities, which we will be talking about tomorrow. In terms of the broader family, I do not quite know what my right hon. and learned Friend would be-a wise uncle, I suppose, to give me good advice. I seriously believe that the link-up with the French over defence is in the long-term interests of both our countries. To those who worry that this might in some way lead to European armies, I say that is not the point. The point is to enhance sovereign capability by two like-minded countries being able to work together.

Nia Griffith: Following on from the Prime Minister's answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) in which he explained very carefully why he fully understands and justifies the use of the Lisbon treaty for modifications, can he explain to us exactly what type of modifications or changes he would want to have a referendum on? Exactly what transfers of power would he want to put to the country in a referendum?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady asks a reasonable question. The Bill that we will be looking at will say that there should be a referendum on any transfer of power-a proper transfer of competence. As a general principle, the House should not give away powers it has without asking the people who put us here first. That is the principle that we should adopt. I do not want us to give any further powers from Britain to Brussels, so I am not proposing that we should. Further to answer the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), I am not anticipating us having a referendum because I do not want to see that transfer of powers. What is being proposed by the Germans and will be finally agreed at the December Council, yes, is a transfer of powers for countries in the eurozone. It definitely means that as well as having the euro, they will have more co-ordination of their economic policy, and punishments if they do not do certain things. That, to me, is perfectly logical if they are in the euro. It was one of the reasons why I did not want to join the euro in the first place and why, as long as I am Prime Minister, we will not do so.

Oliver Heald: Does the Prime Minister accept that it is welcome, if unusual, to see so many Heads of State supporting a British Prime Minister on an issue on which the European Parliament takes a different view? Does he agree that perhaps there is a role for national Parliaments, which, right across Europe, are facing difficult economic decisions, to support these Heads of State, including, of course, the Prime Minister, because it is right-

Chris Bryant: He is not a Head of State.

Oliver Heald: -the Head of Government, I said. It is right that the EU's budget should reflect the means of the countries that are in the EU.

David Cameron: I hope the former Europe Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), will stay calm. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) makes a good point. Part of the problem in the past has been that other member states have not been as focused on the budget and the impact on their own publics as they are now. They are focused on it now because they all have to make difficult decisions. When we sit round the European Council table, we are often discussing what we are having to do with public sector pay, pensions or other difficult decisions, so there is a common interest which the Parliaments of Europe can help remind their Governments about.

Kelvin Hopkins: It is clear that a number of member states are unlikely to be able to sustain their membership of the euro for the long term. They are already suffering serious internal economic damage, some requiring external fiscal transfers, and other countries may be in the same position in the not-too-distant future. Was there any talk, privately or otherwise, of the possibility of member states leaving the euro, so making it work better?

David Cameron: I do not believe that will happen, but what was interesting about this European Council is that there is quite an existential debate taking place within the eurozone about what it means to be a member of the euro. There is a very strong push by the Germans, who obviously feel that they have had to bail out the Greeks, that they have to have tighter rules for members of the eurozone, and there are very great worries on the part of some countries about the sanctions that could be applied to them. This is a debate that was inevitable when there is one currency and many countries and they are having to give up some of their sovereignty to make that single currency work. It is perfectly logical for eurozone members. It reinforces in my mind that they are right to do that, but we are right not to be part of it.

Chris Heaton-Harris: May I say to the Prime Minister how refreshing it was, after 13 years of inactivity and disinterest in this area, to see a British Prime Minister fighting for a reduction in the size of the EU budget and for better value for money for British taxpayers? Can he confirm that he now has two potential vetoes-first, on the limited treaty change on economic governance, and, secondly, on the EU budget for the next period, 2014 to 2020-and that they can be used independently of each other?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Britain does have leverage, influence and an impact in these negotiations. The question that we have to answer is, what can we achieve that is most in the national interest. I do not want to make promises that I cannot keep or to set goals that are impossible, but action on the budget and the future financing is where we should exert our influence.
	When it comes to treaty change, there would be a stronger argument for pursuing treaty changes of our own if what was now being suggested were a wider treaty change. It is not; it is a relatively limited change that makes the temporary mechanism permanent. We will see the full details of it in December, and we will be able to be involved in its negotiation, as my hon. Friend says.

Luciana Berger: Has the Prime Minister made any calculation of how many new teachers, nurses or police officers could have been employed with the 2.9% increase that he has conceded to the EU?

David Cameron: I have to say to the hon. Lady that one constructive thing that she and other Opposition Members could do is to talk to their Members of the European Parliament. They had the chance to vote for a freeze in the budget, and they did not do that. So, it is all very well hon. Members standing up and saying how much more Britain is going to have to pay, but their MEPs are doing nothing to help in that argument.

Aidan Burley: Has the Prime Minister had the chance to discuss security co-operation with the German Chancellor in the light of the increased bomb threats?

David Cameron: Yes. I did have that conversation, because the German Chancellor stayed at Chequers over the weekend, and we discussed a range of those issues. Obviously the aeroplane in question, having left Yemen, had landed in Germany and then in Britain before it was due to go on to the United States. That reminds us of how interconnected we are, so the British and the Germans, quite close together, made the announcement about not receiving packages and parcels from Yemen. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be giving further details in a moment or two, when she makes her statement.

Chris Bryant: Let me get this right. The Prime Minister failed to put together a blocking minority in July, and he did not even manage to get the Polish on board, despite the fact that the Polish Foreign Secretary was in the Bullingdon club with him at Oxford. He failed to put together a blocking minority, he let the matter go through in August, he tried again at the beginning of last week, he failed-and then he proclaims himself the great saviour of this country. How can it possibly be a success until he comes back to this country with a guarantee from the French that they intend to cut the common agricultural policy?

David Cameron: The difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is that when we were both at Oxford he was a member of the Conservative association and I was not.

Nadhim Zahawi: The Prime Minister quite rightly says that London is the financial heart of Europe. The chief executive of the London stock exchange, a Frenchman, has warned of the harm that European legislation can do to the vital alternative investment market. Can the Prime Minister reassure the House that that will not happen?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and it goes to the heart of the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) made. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I and others negotiate in Europe, I am extremely conscious of the fact that some of the directives coming out of the European Commission on alternative investments, such as the Larosière proposals on finance, have the potential to do great damage to the UK, and we do have to make sure that we use our negotiating muscle on the things that make the most difference to us. That is very important. Rather than focusing on things that might sound good from this Dispatch Box, let us focus on the things that make a difference to the great businesses of our country.

Diana Johnson: In the light of the estimated 20,000 job losses among police officers in this country, how many officers does the Prime Minister think could be employed by the 2.9% increase that he has conceded?

David Cameron: I have a message for the Whips: you need to hand out more than one question; it is always better if there is a choice. But I think that I answered it earlier.

Alec Shelbrooke: I congratulate the Prime Minister on once again showing real leadership in Europe. Drawing on the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition a moment ago, we all want to be fully involved at the heart of Europe and in partnership with it, but that does not mean that we have to roll over and have our bellies tickled every time a proposal comes forward.

David Cameron: I am on only my third European Council, and they are rather more frequent than they used to be, but I do not think it is impossible to combine a strong defence of the national interest with building alliances. Everyone round that European Council table recognises that we actually do all have interests that we have to try to protect on our own as well as making sure that we are making the right decisions for the 27.

Kevan Jones: Given that negotiations on the budget are continuing with the European Parliament, will the Prime Minister give us one of his famous cast-iron guarantees that his Government will not accept an increase above that of 2.9%?

David Cameron: The point I can make is that 13 Heads of Government or Heads of State signed a letter saying they would not accept more than 2.9%, so it is not just my word but the word of all those leaders who have said that this should not be accepted. That is the best thing that we could do, and it gives a real chance of either achieving 2.9% or, possibly even better, a deadlock which would mean a freeze for next year.

John Baron: Given the extent of belt tightening in this country, does my right hon. Friend believe that now is the right time to get the EU's accounts to be fully and independently audited in order to reduce waste and fraud, and will he push for that?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The first thing we are going to do is the initiative on transparency and openness to try to draw greater attention to what the European Union spends its money on. We will find that some of the spending-spending on science projects and the like-may be worth while, but I am convinced that there is a lot of waste that could be cut out if we had the transparency that we are applying to our own budget back here in the UK.

James Clappison: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on clearly standing up for Britain's interests? On the parts of the Van Rompuy report that set in place new mechanisms that clearly concern the United Kingdom, even though it is a non-eurozone member, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the inevitable pattern of EU history whereby any grant of power is followed by demands for more and more power, as surely as night follows day?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I can tell him that the Chancellor and I, in undertaking these negotiations, are acutely conscious that you have to watch the language that is being proposed by others in the European Council and keep asking whether it is setting some future trap for the UK Government. I have to say that I think the language in the Van Rompuy report about its not affecting Britain in terms of sanctions is extremely clear.
	There is one other point I would make, which is about the opt-out that was negotiated from the Maastricht treaty. That opt-out has worked well. Yes, there is surveillance in terms of economic policy-that has happened for 10 years-but frankly, it has not forced us into doing anything we did not want to do. Just as that opt-out has held good, we have now renewed and refreshed it for this fresh group of challenges that have come towards us.

Charlie Elphicke: May I congratulate my right hon. old Friend on his excellent statement- [ Interruption ] Well, having some friends, that is-and ask him if he is aware of any member of the British delegation to the European Parliament who voted for the higher budget increase, and if so, will he name and shame them?

David Cameron: What I can say is that when there was a motion in the European Parliament to support a freeze, 12 out of 13-I think it was-Labour MEPs voted against that, so they had the opportunity to stand up for what some of their colleagues have stood up for today, and they failed to do it.

Julian Brazier: In the light of my right hon. Friend's opening remarks and his comments on his bilateral with the German Chancellor, does he agree that Britain is very well placed to lead the transition in Europe towards the era of information-age terrorism, especially as we have GCHQ, and as his new National Security Council has made such a strong commitment to more spending against cyber warfare?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Prime Ministers and Ministers often praise the security services, and it is good to put on the record the very hard work that people at GCHQ in Cheltenham do; they are among the best in the world at what they do. That gives us an opportunity to combat this new threat of cyber terror and cyber attacks that do not just affect our defences but many, many businesses in our country. There is a chance to have some real leadership in this respect, and other countries, including France and Germany, are coming to us wanting to work with us in combating cyber because of the investment we are managing to put in.

Philip Hollobone: The cost of the new European diplomatic corps will eat up on its own the entire net contribution from this country, both this year and going forward. What did my right hon. Friend say to Baroness Ashton about the ballooning costs of that organisation, and what was her response?

David Cameron: I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had this conversation, and I have discussed the issue as well. While we opposed the European External Action Service-we did not want it to be created in the first place-the Lisbon treaty sadly is now a fact we have to live with. But because what were two roles are combined into the role that Baroness Ashton fills, there should be opportunities for some cost savings. Actually, the European Parliament has offices around the world, and we think there is a real opportunity to rationalise that and ensure that it keeps its cost under control.

Aviation Security Incident

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the recent airline bomb plot. The House will know that in the early hours of Friday morning, following information from intelligence sources, the police identified a suspect package on board a UPS courier aircraft that had landed at East Midlands Airport en route from Cologne to Chicago. Later during the morning, police explosives experts identified that the device contained explosive material. A similar device was located and identified in Dubai. It was being transported by FedEx to Chicago.
	Since then, an intensive investigation has been taking place in this country and overseas. Cobra met on Friday to assess progress, I chaired a Cobra meeting on Saturday and the Prime Minister chaired a further Cobra meeting this morning. I am sure the House will appreciate that much of the investigation is sensitive, and the information I can give is necessarily limited. Disclosure of some details could prejudice the investigation, the prospects of bringing the perpetrators to justice, our national security and the security of our allies, but I want to give the House as full a picture as possible.
	We know that both explosive devices originated in Yemen. We believe that they were made and dispatched by the organisation known as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This group, which is based in Yemen, was responsible for the attempted downing of an aircraft bound for Detroit on 25 December last year. The devices were probably intended to detonate mid-air and to destroy the cargo aircraft on which they were being transported. Our own analysis of the device here-analysis that has to proceed with great care to preserve the evidential value of the recovered material-established by Saturday morning that the device was viable. That means not only that it contained explosive material but that it could have detonated. Had the device detonated, we assess that it could have succeeded in bringing down the aircraft. Our forensic examination of the device continues. We are receiving valuable assistance from a wide range of partners, and the analysis has some way to go.
	At this stage we have no information to suggest that another attack of a similar nature by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is imminent, but the organisation is very active. During this year it has repeatedly attacked targets in Yemen. On 26 April and 6 October it attacked and attempted to kill British diplomats based in Sana'a. It continues to plan other attacks in the region, notably against Saudi Arabia. We therefore work on the assumption that the organisation will wish to continue to find ways of attacking targets further afield.
	We will continue to work with international partners to deal with this threat. We have for some years provided assistance to the Yemeni Government and will continue to do so. The Prime Minister has spoken to President Saleh to make clear our desire for a closer security relationship. Following the Detroit incident, Ministers in the last Government took the decision to stop all direct passenger and cargo aircraft flying from Yemen to and through the UK. Over the weekend, we took the further step of stopping all unaccompanied air freight to this country from Yemen. That will include air freight from Yemen both carried on courier flights and hold-loaded in passenger aircraft. The small number of items in transit prior to that direction have been subject to rigorous investigation on arrival in the UK, and no further suspicious items have been discovered.
	We are now taking further steps to maintain our security. I can confirm to the House that we will review all aspects of air freight security and work with international partners to make sure that our defences are as robust as possible. We will update the guidance given to airport security personnel based on what we have learned to enable them to identify similar packages in future.
	From midnight tonight, we will extend the suspension of unaccompanied air freight to this country from not just Yemen but Somalia. This decision has been made as a precautionary measure and it will be reviewed in the coming weeks. It is based on possible contact between al-Qaeda in Yemen and terrorist groups in Somalia, as well as on concern about airport security in Mogadishu.
	From midnight tonight, we will suspend the carriage of toner cartridges larger than 500 grams in passengers' hand baggage on flights departing from UK airports. Also from midnight tonight, we will prohibit the carriage of these items by air cargo into, via or from the UK unless they originate from a known consignor-a regular shipper with security arrangements approved by the Department for Transport.
	We intend that these final two measures will be in place initially for one month. During that time, we will work closely with the aviation industry, screening equipment manufacturers and others, to devise a sustainable, proportionate, long-term security regime to address the threat. Department for Transport officials are already in technical discussions with the industry, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will chair a high-level industry meeting later this week to discuss next steps. These initiatives are in addition to those that we have set out in the strategic defence and security review.
	We are already committed to widening checks on visa applicants to this country. Following the Detroit incident, we are also committed to making changes to pre-departure checks to identify better the people who pose a terrorist threat and to prevent them from flying to the UK.
	We are committed to enhancing our e-borders programme, which provides data on who is travelling to this country and which is therefore an essential foundation for our counter-terrorist and wider security work. We have an increasingly active and important border co-operation programme with counterparts in the USA. The Detroit incident led to the introduction of further passenger scanning devices at key airports in the UK.
	Cobra will continue to meet through this week. The National Security Council will also consider this issue. We will continue to work closely with our partners overseas.
	Finally, the House will wish to join me in expressing gratitude to the police and the security and intelligence agencies in this country for the work they are doing to understand the threat we face and to deal with it so effectively.

Edward Balls: The whole country has been shocked by the events of the last four days-by the discovery of two concealed and hard-to-detect explosive devices on aircraft, one of which was at East Midlands airport, by the risk that further devices may be at large and by the serious and challenging threat that such terrorist activity constitutes to public safety and our country's security.
	At Home Office questions earlier, I commended the Home Secretary for the calm way in which she has led the response to these threats and chaired and reported on Cobra meetings. I thank her for the Privy Council briefings that she gave me on Friday night and again on Saturday afternoon. I join her in commending our police, intelligence and security services for the brave and vital work they have done over the past few days in close co-operation with allies around the world to save lives, as they do every other day of the year.
	It is the job of Her Majesty's Opposition to ask questions, probe statements and hold the Government to account. That we will do, but we will be mindful at all times of our wider responsibility to support necessary actions to keep our citizens safe and protect our vital national interests. In that spirit, I have questions for the Home Secretary on three issues: the detailed events of the last few days and the implications for airline security and wider national security.
	First, we all appreciate the way in which intelligence and international co-operation are involved. Events move fast, and things are always clearer with hindsight, but at what precise point were the police, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister first told about the potential threat? Were there delays in getting precise information to our security and police officers on the ground? Why was the device not discovered by police officers during the first search? Could earlier information have made a material difference to the search? What operational lessons, if any, will be learned when dealing with such events in the future?
	Secondly, the fact that the two live explosive devices were intercepted by an intelligence tip-off only after they had been carried on at least five different planes, three of which were passenger aircraft, raises serious questions about the security of our airspace. Some security experts have referred to cargo security as a potential blind spot. I understand that Lord Carlile drew attention to the potential risks of cargo transit in his annual reports in 2007 and 2008, and that significant actions were taken to improve intelligence and international security co-operation at that time. I also understand that a tougher search method, called explosive trace detection, was introduced for passenger flights last year following the Detroit attempted attack.
	I appreciate that this is a complex problem to solve, that a review has been set up and that the Home Secretary has already acted to ban unaccompanied cargo packages from Yemen and Somalia and put in place temporary restrictions on carrying toner cartridges, but what conclusions does she draw about the reliability of current checks from the fact that the device was not spotted on the first check by police experts at East Midlands airport? Will the review consider extending explosive trace detection from passenger to cargo flights, which I believe has happened in the United States? Will the scope of her review cover cargo carried in passenger as well as cargo aircraft? Should we take any other action now to improve the security of cargo coming into, going out of or transiting the UK while the review is undertaken?
	The events of the last few days also raise wider issues for national security and our counter-terrorism strategy. It is clear that terrorists operating out of Yemen constitute an increasing threat, as the Home Secretary said. Can she assure the House that the Government are in urgent discussions with the Yemeni Government and our allies around the world with a view to doing more to interrupt terrorist activities at source? Given the wider evidence of a mounting threat, the judgments that will underpin the Government's current review of counter-terrorism powers are especially important. Although we will reserve judgment until we see the outcome of the review, I have said that the Opposition will seek to support her where we can and that consensus should be our shared goal.
	Finally, I must raise the issue of resources. Given that the explosive devices were intercepted through vital intelligence work, is the Home Secretary confident that a 6% real-terms cut in the single intelligence account over the next four years can be managed without compromising such work? Given that the device was discovered by specially trained police working closely with our security and border services, is she confident that a 10% real-terms cut in counter-terrorism policing over the next four years and a 50% cut in capital available to the UK Border Agency will not undermine operational capability?
	The Olympics are now just two years away and the eyes of the world will be on our country. Given that the planned 20% real-terms cuts in police budgets is front-end loaded, and that there will be a 6% cut in the year before the games and an 8% cut in the year of the Olympics itself, can the Home Secretary assure the House that the extra strain that police resources will face will not pose an unacceptable risk to fighting crime and our national security? Does she agree with me that in the light of the events of the past few days, the issue of resources should now be looked at again, alongside the counter-terrorism review?

Theresa May: May I first thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has responded on this issue? He is absolutely right that this is a not a matter of party political divide, but one of concern to all of us across the House. It is important that we get our response right, and I am grateful to him for indicating that he will support the Government in the measures that we take and the response that we give. He asked a number of detailed questions, some of which were quite operational in type. I will attempt to answer as many of his questions as possible, but if I do not answer his operational ones now, I will be happy to do so in writing afterwards.
	The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact, which I mentioned in my statement, that the initial indication of the device came from intelligence. We do not speak about intelligence sources or say how it came about, but, on timing, I can tell him that the police attended the airport and looked to see what they could find in relation to the device. It took a while before the device was identified as something that contained explosive material. I and the Prime Minister were informed that there was a device containing explosive material at about 2 o'clock on Friday.
	The right hon. Gentleman referred to comments from security experts about this being the "soft underbelly", which is a term that some have used. In relation to cargo and other aspects, I would say that, as I am sure he is aware, we are in a constant battle with the terrorists, who are always looking for another innovative way to get around our defences. Our job, and the job of our security and intelligence agencies and the police, is to ensure that we do all we can to ensure that there are no gaps in our defences. In that context, the work that the Government have already done in introducing the national security strategy and, crucially, in bringing Departments together in our work on security is an important part of that task.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked various questions about cargo. The review will cover a number of issues. Obviously, when such an incident takes place, it is right that we take stock and that we take action immediately-as we have done-but that we do more work with the industry. As I indicated, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be taking that forward, and I can confirm that the review will consider the extension of explosive trace detection, although there are some significant technical issues there. Certainly, however, the review will look at that.
	The right hon. Gentleman referred to the counter-terrorism review. As he will have heard me say at Home Office questions earlier, final decisions have not been taken on the review. I am absolutely apprised of the fact that the Government, like every Government, need to ensure that the safety and security of the public are a prime concern. We need to rebalance our national security with our civil liberties, but I am well aware that it is our national security that enables us to enjoy our civil liberties. We remain conscious of that.
	The right hon. Gentleman then asked a number of questions about cuts to budgets. He asked whether I was confident in the ability of the security and intelligence agencies to maintain their level of work, and to do their vital job in keeping us safe, and I can say that yes, I am confident. On cuts in policing, as he knows, police forces will be able to take money out of non-front-line policing. On border services, crucially, the coalition Government are committed to enhancing our ability to keep our borders secure, through the introduction of the border police command under the new national crime agency we will be setting up.
	Finally, of course the Olympics budget is protected, and a significant part of the Olympics security budget, which is protected within the Home Office, relates to Olympics policing.

Simon Hughes: I thank the Home Secretary, her officials and the police, security and intelligence community for their excellent work in this case. In implementing the comprehensive set of measures that she has announced, will she take into account the fact that there have been reports of variable levels of rigour deployed by different companies responsible for ensuring that the highest inspection standards are enforced throughout our airports? Will she also undertake to ensure that any goods coming directly or indirectly from any country about which we have a particular concern have the same tracking method and the same double security check, which will give the additional assurance we need in regard to people acting mainly from specific places around the world?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Obviously, the review has to consider a number of aspects of how we can defend ourselves against potential attacks of this sort. We can control what we do at our own airports, but of course what is done at overseas airports is not directly under our control. That is why our international work is so important. Generally the UK is looked to as a leader in airport security, and often other countries look to see what we are doing, and enhance their procedures in line with it. Obviously we will be talking to other countries, as well as to airline and airport operators, about the arrangements that they put in place. It is important that we are able to conduct certain tracking operations. For example, I checked with UKBA just before I came here to make this statement, and I can say that it has been tracking and looking at the ban introduced on Saturday on unaccompanied freight cargo from Yemen, and has confirmed that the prohibition has been operating properly.

Jack Straw: May I add my commendation to the right hon. Lady for the balanced and calm way in which she has dealt with this difficult situation, something on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and I both have reason to reflect? Given the critical role that intelligence played in the detection of this potential outrage, may I ask her whether she agrees with what Sir John Sawers said last week in advance of this outrage, about the need for accountability for the agencies, but also, above all, about the imperative of secrecy to enable them to do their job with security, which is essential if we are to defeat the terrorist threat?

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and I agree with him absolutely. By definition, the very nature of the secret services is that part of what they do is secret. It is important that efforts are made where possible to explain to the public the sort of work being done and the sort of issues being addressed. Indeed, there has been a series of speeches in recent weeks-from the director general of MI5, the head of GCHQ and, now, Sir John Sawers-explaining the operation of each of those different agencies, but of course it is axiomatic that secret work has to be conducted in secret.

Andrew Bridgen: I would like to praise the security services and the staff of East Midlands airport, which lies in my constituency. By intercepting that package, they may well have saved lives. Everyone who contributed to that successful operation can be rightly proud. However, I would like to ask the Home Secretary for an assurance that additional screening will be introduced only if it is clearly shown to be necessary, and that any such measures would be implemented on a Europe-wide or worldwide basis, and not just in the UK alone.

Theresa May: rose-

Andrew Bridgen: In other words, what we need to do is avoid UK-only measures.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that we have got the drift of the hon. Gentleman's inquiry.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. May I join him in commending the work of all those at East Midlands airport, including the police and others working there, for the way that they dealt with the incident? It is one thing to stand here in the House of Commons and talk about such an incident; it is quite another to approach a device that one knows may be explosive and to deal with it on behalf of others. I certainly thank them for their work, and I commend them for it.
	On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I would simply say that it is not in our gift to mandate the response of others on such issues. However, the work that we will be doing-and that we have been doing as a country over the years-which involves talking to international partners, airlines and airport operators about security levels and the measures that need to be put in place, is part of the process of trying to ensure that, as far as possible, we see enhanced security in other places.

David Blunkett: May I reinforce the bipartisan approach that my right hon. Friends have already mentioned? The Home Secretary will know that we have a significant Yemeni community in Sheffield, the members of which would want me to offer their support for the measures that she has announced this afternoon and for the way in which she is drawing down experience and expertise. Will she engage the Yemeni community in this country as part of the process of reinforcing the Government's approach to the Yemeni Government, who face the most enormous difficulties because of historic, geographic and tribal splits, and the way in which al-Qaeda has moved from Saudi Arabia into Yemen, and in some cases is using the discontent of people living there as a way of propagating its terrorist activity across the world?

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, and of course that understanding and knowledge of the Yemeni community here in the UK are important to us. The Government have been working closely with the Yemeni Government to try to support them in doing what they want to do, which is to ensure that al-Qaeda is not in Yemen and is not able either to make attacks in Yemen or to use the country as a launch pad for attacks elsewhere. We will continue to work with the Yemeni Government to do all we can to provide them with the support that they need to conduct that task.

Patrick Mercer: The Home Secretary will be aware that the borders of this country do not start and stop with the white cliffs of Dover. Will she outline what resources she intends to deploy directly in support of the Yemeni Government, and, if necessary, as the Department for Homeland Security has done, consider work in that country?

Theresa May: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that work is already under way with the Yemeni Government. Indeed, following the attempted Detroit bombing on 25 December, measures were put in place under the previous Labour Government, and have been continued under this Government, to work with the Yemeni Government and to provide them with various levels of support, particularly around airport security, which was crucial to the attempted bombing of that plane. That work is being funded by the Foreign Office and will be continued. More widely, the Foreign Office has been part of the Friends of Yemen group, bringing in others to ensure that we do all we can to provide the sort of support that the Yemeni Government need in their battle against al-Qaeda, and to help us to fight al-Qaeda, too.

Hazel Blears: The devices were clearly designed to wreak havoc and cause a massive loss of life. I am sure that the country has breathed a sigh of relief that they were detected in this way. The right hon. Lady recognised that intelligence and the sharing of intelligence were key to what has happened. Will she reassure us that our international relationships are robust and strong enough to ensure the maximum sharing of that intelligence? Will she also, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) has indicated, reflect on the fact that the comprehensive spending review says that there will be a real-term reduction in counter-terrorism funding for the police? In the light of such circumstances, I ask her to reflect on that position.

Theresa May: I have already responded on counter-terrorism policing. In answer to the first part of the right hon. Lady's question about our relationships with international partners, let me say that on intelligence gathering and the sharing of intelligence, the working with international partners is absolutely crucial. We have a particularly close relationship with the United States. Since this incident took place, I have spoken twice with my direct opposite number, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. The Prime Minister has spoken to President Obama, and other contacts are taking place with the United States. We are also conscious of the fact that we need to enhance information sharing and working with other partners across the world. For example, last week I was in Pakistan, talking to the Pakistani Government about how can enhance our relationship in the battle that we all fight in dealing with terrorists and the terrorist threat.

Julian Lewis: My right hon. Friend has already made reference to the processes involved in scanning cargoes. Will she explain to the House whether the main issue is that existing scanners may not pick up a device of this sort, or is it that devices of this sort have been placed on the aircraft in other countries and they would not routinely pass before our own scanners?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his detailed question. I am not in a position to give him an absolute answer, because forensic work is still ongoing in relation to the device. Obviously, once that forensic work is complete, we will know rather more about the device and, therefore, about what the response should be in relation to screening that sort of device. Until that forensic work is complete, it would not be appropriate for me to hazard an answer to the point that he has made.

Keith Vaz: Mr Speaker, may I declare my interest, commend those who work in East Midlands airport, and warmly welcome the phone conversation between the Prime Minister and President Ali Abdullah Saleh? Does the Home Secretary not agree that the best way to protect our people is to work with the Yemeni Government? That means giving them the equipment and the security capability that we promised them at the London conference in January and implementing the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. I implore her to work with the Foreign Secretary and the International Development Secretary to ensure that a stunningly beautiful but desperately poor country does not fall into the hands of al-Qaeda?

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those points. I understand that the equipment that was promised earlier this year, following the Detroit incident, is to be delivered to Yemen shortly. The Government have been working with the Yemeni Government, and we have common cause against al-Qaeda and will continue to do so for as long as it is in that country. Certainly, my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development are cognisant of the role that their Departments can play in helping the Yemen to fight back against the cancer of terrorism.

Ben Wallace: I thank my right hon. Friend for her excellent bulletins and for her statement today informing us of the situation. That has led to a lack of hysteria as the issue has been reported in the media. At times like these, it is easy to reach for the latest piece of technology as a solution, as the previous Government did in the past. In countering terrorism, however, that often ignores the best solution, which is the profiling of people, air freight, destinations and embarkation points. Will the Home Secretary look again at the use of profiling, both for passengers and for freight, to see whether there is not a better way of solving the problem that we are facing from the likes of Yemen?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an issue that has been mentioned on a number of occasions. That approach has been adopted by others. We are looking at all the techniques that we should be using to ensure that we provide the maximum protection for people in the UK. In relation to passengers, we are enhancing our ability at the borders to ensure that those who are a threat to the UK do not travel here.

Nigel Dodds: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and commend the security and intelligence services for their great work. Sadly, however, she will be aware that the bomb at East Midlands airport was not the only bomb to be planted or found at a British airport this weekend. A bomb planted by IRA dissidents was found and defused at Belfast city airport. It would have caused casualties, injuries and even death, and I commend the security forces on locating and defusing it. This illustrates the fact that British citizens are subject to attack from a range of sources. Will the Home Secretary give a guarantee to all our citizens, wherever they live, that resources and efforts will be put into combating all kinds of terrorism? The focus is rightly on the incident in the east midlands at the moment, but the people of Northern Ireland are still facing the threat of dissident republican terrorism.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of the fact that terrorism comes from a number of sources, and not just from al-Qaeda. I commend the security forces and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, not only this weekend but over recent months, for the increasing amount of work that they have done to prevent any incidents of terrorism in Northern Ireland from taking place. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman will have seen in the national security strategy that we published two weeks ago that we have clearly indentified the threat from dissident republicanism as one that we need to address. We are conscious of the fact that the number of attempted attacks in Northern Ireland has been increasing in recent months.

Robert Halfon: I commend the security services for doing a remarkable job, but does not the incident involving the Detroit bomber show that other parts of civil society, such as our universities, are failing to get a grip on Islamist extremists? Does the Home Secretary agree that, for our fight against terrorism to succeed, we need to deal effectively with the conveyor belt to terrorism, just as we must deal with the terrorists themselves?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I hope that I can reassure him that, alongside our work on the incident at the weekend and on reviewing our counter-terrorism legislation, we are also looking at the development of extremism and the process of radicalisation. It is important that we ensure that people do not get drawn into a radicalised agenda that leads to extremism, violence and terror. That work is ongoing.

Paul Goggins: May I also thank the Home Secretary for her work over recent days, and for her statement this afternoon? In devising more effective ways of screening freight, what role do she and the Secretary of State for Transport envisage for the national aviation security committee, given the important role that the aviation industry plays in that committee's work?

Theresa May: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the question of the most appropriate forum for the discussions and work that need to take place will be discussed with the industry later this week at a meeting chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Paul Uppal: In view of the fact that Yemeni unemployment is running at something like 40% and particularly that the intelligence intercept we received was from a former al-Qaeda operative, and echoing the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), may I ask the Home Secretary to be mindful of the fact that the battle for young hearts and minds is as important for the long term as any short-term security measures we implement?

Theresa May: I agree with my hon. Friend that the battle for hearts and minds is important. The approach to keeping this country safe is multi-layered. We have spent some time talking about physical security measures, which are an important part of our work to keep the country safe-intelligence and police work are other essential aspects of that work-but it is also important to ensure that we win the battle of hearts and minds, as my hon. Friend suggests. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the Home Office is already looking at the processes of radicalisation and ways in which people turn to extremism. We need to see what can be done to ensure that we stop those routes and encourage people into a different way of life such that they do not want to blow up and kill people.

David Hamilton: As someone who stays 20 miles from Edinburgh airport, I can tell the Home Secretary that the bomb incident in middle England has alerted people to the fact that this is not just a London issue. Has she been in contact with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments to give assurances-it is especially necessary in Scotland where there are discussions about moving to just one police force-that the highest levels of security will be maintained in all regional airports?

Theresa May: I inform the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend the Minister for Security spoke to the devolved Administrations at the weekend.

Jo Johnson: Does the Home Secretary agree that the best way of defending this country against the terrorist threat is to win the battle of hearts and minds, as has been said? I happened to spend Saturday and Sunday in Gaza, talking to young Palestinian people, and it was very clear to me that we are losing that battle at quite a rate-in large part because of the continuation of the blockade of Gaza. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend feels that our efforts might best be spent not in reaching for the latest bit of technology-my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) mentioned that-but in deploying ever-greater diplomatic efforts to resolving that particular long-standing conflict?

Theresa May: There are many issues to be addressed in the fight to prevent the cancer of terrorism. As I said, it is not simply about physical security; many aspects need to be dealt with. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are well aware of the many issues that need to be considered.

Stephen McCabe: Given the particular nature of the threat, does the Home Secretary think it might be advisable to think again about cuts in capital for the equipment used in screening and detection programmes at our sea ports and airports?

Theresa May: There are two aspects to the expenditure on equipment. Much of the equipment used for screening at airports and some other aspects is paid for by the industry rather than Government. The hon. Gentleman has reminded me that I failed to respond to one of the questions put by the shadow Home Secretary-about capital expenditure at the UK Border Agency. I assure the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends that, within the capital programme for the UK Border Agency. key aspects of the work needed to enhance our border security, such as e-borders, are protected.

Rehman Chishti: The Friends of Yemen task group reported back to the United Nations in July on a strategy for Yemen. What steps have been taken to implement the findings, prior to the group's meeting in Riyadh?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The Foreign Office has been taking this matter forward, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been very alive to the need for the Government to be working within that Friends of Yemen group to ensure that steps are taken to support the Yemen Government. I would be happy to ensure that my hon. Friend receives a detailed reply on the particular steps that have been taken.

Louise Ellman: The events of the weekend underline the importance of global intelligence systems, but what new steps can be taken to develop new technologies and techniques to deal with the information that comes from those systems? May we have an absolute assurance that we will take strong action against those who incite mass murder, and that we will not accept any political excuse from those who advocate the killing of human beings?

Theresa May: I am happy to support what the hon. Lady has said about the need to deal with those who purport to encourage others to kill human beings and indulge in mass murder in the name of politics. As for her first question, there are many different aspects to it, and many different approaches need to be taken in response to intelligence. Some of that response may involve police work, while some may involve physical security work by Governments or others. It is essential for us to think carefully about all the facts that we need to identify and deal with, and we are working on that with airline operators and the aviation industry generally.
	As I said in my statement, the screening equipment manufacturers have done helpful work with the Government since the incident involving the plane to Detroit. I look forward to establishing a relationship with those manufacturers, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, as we address yet another issue.

Richard Graham: In the light of all that has happened recently, I thank the Home Secretary and the Government for making the difficult decision, in straitened times, to increase our overall spending on intelligence in order to combat terrorism. Will the Home Secretary join me in thanking my constituents who work down the road at GCHQ for the vital work that they do to protect our nation, and will she join me in encouraging our schools to make full use of the language immersion centre in Gloucestershire, which will be built soon and which will develop the skills in difficult languages that are so vital to our intelligence work?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised an issue of which he has particular knowledge, but there is probably not much awareness generally of the need for people to be skilled in a large number of languages, including some that are not normally taught. I am happy to commend the work to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. As one of two Members who were born in Yemen, may I ask for an assurance that she will ask the Secretary of State for International Development to ensure that aid to that country continues at its current level?

Theresa May: As I have already said, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Foreign Secretary are very conscious of the role that they can play, and that aid can play, in supporting Yemen. We are working closely with the Yemeni Government to enable them to deal with the al-Qaeda threat that is faced not only by us from Yemen, but by them inside it.

Tom Harris: As a country we are good at preventing the kind of attacks that we have already seen, but arguably less good at anticipating new forms of attack. Apart from the month-long ban on the carriage of printer cartridges, what bans are the security services considering imposing on items in carry-on luggage?

Theresa May: It is important that the Government have acted now to deal with the threat that we have seen, including the specific issue of printer cartridges. We will do further scientific work. As I said earlier, it is not always appropriate to give details, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the need not just to respond to what has happened, but to be constantly alert in the future.

Kevin Brennan: This very disturbing incident coincided with press reports about a possible future fudge on the counter-terrorism review that the Home Secretary is undertaking, in order to meet the needs of some colleagues in the coalition. May I encourage the right hon. Lady to take the position attributed to her in the press and make sure that at all times she puts the protection of the British public ahead of any protection of her coalition partners?

Theresa May: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the coalition Government as a whole are governing in the national interest, and that we are very conscious that the first task of government is to keep the public safe. As I have said, and as I also said earlier this afternoon in Home Office questions, no final decisions have been taken on the counter-terrorism legislation review, but at such time as they are taken they will, of course, be brought before the House.

Mr Speaker: I have been saving up the hon. Gentleman: I call Mr Paul Flynn.

Paul Flynn: Does this event not undermine the British Government's justification for continuing to demand that our brave British soldiers continue to risk their lives in Afghanistan-that that keeps Afghanistan free of terrorist camps-and ignore the fact that the terrorist threat are not the Taliban but al-Qaeda, which is free to operate in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia?

Theresa May: I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that this is not a zero-sum game: it is simply not the case that if we are able to take action against a group of terrorists in one place they just move somewhere else and we then deal with them there. In recent months and years we have seen the sources of terrorist threats become more diverse. Our troops have been doing a remarkable job in Afghanistan with great courage-great bravery-in order to ensure that al-Qaeda is unable to regain a foothold in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda is, however, starting to operate from other parts of the world; that is the diversity of the threat, rather than simply an alternative one. I therefore say to the hon. Gentleman that it is right that we commend the important and vital work our troops have been doing in Afghanistan, but we must also be aware of the al-Qaeda threat growing in other parts of the world.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Home Secretary and other colleagues for their co-operation.

Chi Onwurah: rose-

Mr Speaker: We were about to proceed to the main business, but not before we have had a point of order from Chi Onwurah.

Point of Order

Chi Onwurah: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Over the weekend there have been reports in the press that children's hospitals such as the Royal Victoria infirmary in Newcastle will face substantial cuts in funding. I have seen the work that is done, and I know how much concern there will be among parents and children. Will you, Mr Speaker, explain for the benefit of those not familiar with the ways of the House that any such announcement should take place on the Floor of the House, and will you ask the Minister with responsibility to come here and confirm those reports, or reassure us on them?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, although I am not sure that I will be able to satisfy her with my response to it. The form of Government announcements is a matter for the Government-that is to say, whether there is an oral or a written statement is a matter for Ministers to decide, not the Chair. I suspect that the hon. Lady will remain eagerly alert for any developments on this matter.
	The second point I will make to the hon. Lady, which I hope she will forgive me for making, is that I have a sense that her attempted point of order will be communicated to either  The Evening  Chronicle or the  Journal in Newcastle, or possibly both.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Programme) (No. 4)

Mark Harper: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, in place of paragraph 5 of the Order of 6 September 2010:
	1. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	2. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			 TABLE 
			  Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Amendments relating to Clause 11. 7.30 pm on the first day. 
			 Amendments relating to Clauses 12 and 13; Amendments relating to Clause 10; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 2. The moment of interruption on the first day. 
			 Amendments relating to Clause 4; Amendments relating to Schedules 5 to 8; Amendments relating to Clause 8; remaining proceedings on consideration. 8.00 pm on the second day. 
		
	
	I will be very brief. I am grateful to those hon. Members who took part in our five days of lively and rigorous debate on the Bill in Committee, and I look forward to continuing that debate throughout Report and Third Reading. Some hon. Members have expressed concern that certain parts of the Bill were debated less than others in Committee. The Government still believe that five days was an appropriate length of time, and how some hon. Members chose to use the time is, of course, a matter for them, not the Government.
	The Government are, however, keen to ensure that Members have further opportunity to debate all the Bill's provisions on Report, so the programme motion prioritises those provisions on which less time was spent in Committee. The motion provides that today's debate will be on clauses 11 to 13, which relate to the boundary proposals, with a knife after clause 11 to ensure that we do get on to discussing local inquiries and the decoupling clause for the Welsh Assembly. Tomorrow's debate will focus on the rules for combined polls and the issue of referendum thresholds. Third Reading will provide a further opportunity for Members to scrutinise and express their views on the Bill, as amended.
	It was right that the Home Secretary came here today to make her very important statement about threats to our national security. That, of course, has necessitated the use of some valuable parliamentary time and I trust that all hon. and right hon. Members will agree that the time we have left is best used scrutinising the Bill and debating the issues of substance. I hope, therefore, that all hon. and right hon. Members will feel able to agree with the programme motion and that we shall move on to debating the Bill.

Chris Bryant: No, we disagree with the knives in this motion, and we made that absolutely clear when asked about it last week. We believe that allowing this amount of time today and tomorrow is inappropriate; we believe that it is inappropriate not to allow any specific time for votes, because it is the right of this House not only to debate but to vote on such matters; we believe that it is inappropriate in particular to have so little time tomorrow, when we will be dealing with 28 pages of Government amendments, not a single one of which is the result of discussions in Committee; and we think that it is inappropriate for no further time to be allowed today, particularly as we have had two, albeit important, statements. So we will be opposing the motion.

Jonathan Edwards: As a whole, the Bill is very significant for Wales-holding the alternative vote referendum on the same day as the National Assembly elections next May and introducing an equal electoral roll based on population quota for constituencies are both very damaging measures for Wales and democracy in our country. It is an insult that we were refused a Welsh Grand Committee debate on the Bill. Only one clause relates to Wales-it was clause 11, but it is now clause 13-and it deserves proper time for discussion in this Chamber. Specific time should have been allotted for its discussion-and not as an afterthought-because we probably will not reach it this evening. We should have had a proper debate on the clause for Wales, so we will be voting against the programme motion.

Kevin Brennan: The time that has been given to debate the Bill overall is inadequate, as is the time set out in today's programme motion. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) was absolutely right to point out the lack of time that has been granted to discuss the Welsh aspects of this Bill and, in particular, the intransigent refusal to grant any time to the Welsh Grand Committee process. That is leading to a "bring back John Redwood" campaign in Wales, because nobody can remember the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) ever refusing any meeting with Welsh MPs or any meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee; I am sure that he would confirm as much himself.
	Finally, this might have been an appropriate allocation of time for the Bill if it were not a Wallace and Gromit Bill, laying the track as we go along with hundreds and hundreds of Government amendments. Instead, the Bill should have been properly scrutinised in advance and should have been through a pre-legislative scrutiny process. For that reason, the time allocated and the knives in the programme motion are wholly inadequate.

Question put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 241.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

[Relevant documents: First Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, The implications for Wales of the Government's proposals for constitutional reform, HC 495.
	 Third Report from the Political and constitutional Reform Committee, Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, HC 437, and oral evidence taken before the Committee on Thursday 15 July on the Coalition Government's programme of political and constitutional reform, HC 358-i.]

[1(st) allocated day]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Committee

Clause 11
	 — 
	number and distribution of seats

Chris Bryant: I beg to move amendment No 9, in page 9, leave out lines 13 to 20 and insert-
	1A (1) No constituency shall have an electorate more than 5 per cent. above or below the electoral quota for that part of the United Kingdom unless the Boundary Commission concerned believes there to be overriding reasons under the terms of these rules why it should.
	(2) No constituency shall have an electorate more than 10 per cent. above or below the electoral quota for that part of the United Kingdom.
	(3) In this Schedule "the electoral quota for that part of the United Kingdom" means-
	U / Y
	where U is the electorate of that part of the United Kingdom minus the electorate of the areas mentioned in rule 5A and Y is the number of constituencies in that part minus the number of constituencies allocated within that part as a result of the operation of rule 5A.'.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 185, page 9, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert-
	(a) no more than 5% above or below the United Kingdom electoral quota unless the Boundary Commission concerned believes there to be exceptional geographic circumstances, and
	(b) no more than 15% above or below the United Kingdom electoral quota.'.
	Amendment 200, page 9, line 14, leave out 'United Kingdom electoral quota' and insert 'electoral quota for the part of the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland) in which the constituency is located'.
	Amendment 2, page 9, line 16, after '6(2)', insert ', 6A(2)'.
	Amendment 201, page 9, line 16, leave out ', 6(2) and 7' and insert 'and 6(2)'.
	Amendment 202, page 9, leave out lines 17 to 20 and insert-
	'(3) In this rule "electoral quota" means-
	U / C
	where U is the electorate of the part of the United Kingdom in which the constituency is located, reduced in the case of Scotland by the electorate of the constituencies mentioned in rule 6, and C is the number of constituencies allocated to that part under rule 8.'.
	Amendment 182, page 9, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert-
	U / (600-C)
	where U is the electorate of the United Kingdom minus the electorate of the Council areas mentioned in rule 6 and C is the number of constituencies allocated to these Council areas.'.
	Amendment 184, page 9, line 20, at end insert
	'and accordingly the electorate of each part of the United Kingdom shall be treated for the purposes of this rule as reduced by the electorate of those constituencies.'.
	Amendment 10, page 9, leave out lines 27 to 34.
	Amendment 186, page 9, line 30, leave out from 'if' to end of line 34 and insert
	'the Boundary Commission is concerned that unusual geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a proposed constituency, would require an unreasonable amount of time to travel round the various communities within it.'.
	Amendment 188, page 10, line 2, leave out 'A Boundary Commission' and insert
	'The Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland and Wales.'.
	Amendment 11, page 10, line 10, at end insert-
	'(1A) A Boundary Commission shall ensure that-
	(a) in England, no district or borough ward shall be included in more than one constituency;
	(b) in Northern Ireland, no local authority ward shall be included in more than one constituency;
	(c) in Wales, no unitary authority ward shall be included in more than one constituency;
	(d) in Scotland, regard shall be had to local authority ward boundaries.
	(1B) The Boundary Commission for England shall where practicable have regard to the boundaries of counties and London boroughs; and in any case no constituency shall include the whole or part of more than two counties or London boroughs.
	(1C) The Boundary Commission for Wales shall where practicable have regard to the boundaries of unitary authorities; and in any case no constituency shall include the whole or part of more than two unitary authorities.'.
	Amendment 193, page 10, line 10, at end insert-
	'(1A) The Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland may take into account to such extent as they think fit-
	(a) special geographical considerations;
	(b) considerations arising from the co-terminosity of parliamentary constituencies and multi-member constituencies for the Northern Ireland Assembly under the Northern Ireland Act 1998;
	(c) local government boundaries as they exist on the most recent day of an election for any district council, other than an election to fill a vacancy;
	(d) any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies;
	(e) the inconveniences attendant upon such changes.'.
	Amendment 196, page 10, line 10, at end insert-
	'(1A) A Boundary Commission shall have power to specify, in certain specified circumstances set out in subsection (1C) below, that constituencies in areas determined by the Boundary Commission shall be-
	(a) wholly within a principal local authority or authorities; or
	(b) wholly within well-established historic or geographical boundaries.
	(1B) The impact of any decision taken in respect of areas defined under subsection (1A) must not create constituencies within the remainder of the region or nation in which such areas fall which fail to meet the rules in this Schedule.
	(1C) The coterminosity of parliamentary constituencies with boundaries as defined in subsection (1A) may be specified when the following support such a proposition-
	(a) the principal local authority or authorities within the area proposed;
	(b) all sitting Members of Parliament representing constituencies wholly or partially within that area; and
	(c) at least two-thirds of all civil parish, community and town councils or parish meetings within that area who make a representation;
	and where the Boundary Commission is satisfied, from its own soundings amongst the electorate and the business and voluntary sectors, that such a proposal is widely supported.'.
	Amendment 207, page 10, line 16, at end insert-
	'(2A) The Boundary Commission for England shall take into account counties as listed in Schedule 1 to the 1997 Lieutenancies Act in so far as is possible in accordance with rule 2 above.'.
	Amendment 12, page 10, line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
	Amendment 13, page 10, leave out lines 18 to 24 and insert-
	 'Specified areas
	5A (1) The following shall be allocated whole numbers of constituencies by whichever Boundary Commission is responsible for them:
	(a) Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands council areas;
	(b) Comhairle nan Eilean Siar council area;
	(c) The Isle of Anglesey county area;
	(d) The Isle of Wight county area;
	(e) The County of Cornwall and Isles of Scilly council areas.'.
	Amendment 183, page 10, leave out lines 18 to 25 and insert-
	 'Whole numbers of constituencies
	6 (1) The following shall be allocated whole numbers of constituencies by whichever Boundary Commission is responsible for them-
	(a) Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands council areas;
	(b) Comhairle nan Eilean Siar council area;
	(c) the Cyngor Sir Ynys Môn Isle of Anglesey county area;
	(d) the Isle of Wight county area;
	(e) the County of Cornwall and Isles of Scilly council areas;
	(f) the Highland Council area;
	(g) the Argyll and Bute Council area.
	(2) The number of constituencies to be allocated to each area shall be determined by dividing the electorate of the area or areas concerned by the United Kingdom Electoral Average and rounding to the nearest whole number, unless this would mean that rule 4(1) could not be satisfied, in which case the area concerned will be allocated the smallest number of constituencies required in order to satisfy that rule. Each area must be allocated at least one whole constituency.
	(3) In this rule "United Kingdom Electoral Average" means (where E is the electorate of the United Kingdom)-
	E / 600 .'.
	Amendment 1, page 10, line 25, at end insert-
	 'Isle of Wight
	6A (1) All parts of the Isle of Wight must be included in a constituency which is wholly in the Isle of Wight.
	(2) Rule 2 does not apply to any such constituency.'.
	Amendment 4, page 10, line 25, at end insert-
	 'Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly
	6A (1) All parts of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly must be included in a constituency which is wholly in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.
	(2) Rule 2 does not apply in relation to any such constituencies.
	(3) The electorate of any constituency in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly shall be:
	(a) no less than 95 per cent. of the Cornwall and Scilly electoral quota; and
	(b) no more than 105 per cent. of that quota.
	(4) The "Cornwall and Scilly electoral quota" means C/E where C is the electorate of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and E is the number of parliamentary constituencies which the Commission has determined should be allocated to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.
	(5) The number of Parliamentary seats allocated to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly shall not result in the electoral quota of any other constituency being compromised in respect of Rule 2.'.
	Amendment 189, page 10, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 11.
	Amendment 192, page 10, line 27, leave out from 'Ireland' to end of line 7 on page 11 and insert-
	' the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland shall establish a Northern Ireland electoral quota by dividing the electorate of Northern Ireland by the number of seats allocated to Northern Ireland as determined under rule 8.
	'(2) The electorate of any constituency in Northern Ireland shall be no less than 95% of the Northern Ireland electoral quota and no more than 105% of the Northern Ireland electoral quota except where sub-paragraph (3) applies.
	(3) Where the Boundary Commission consider that they can best have regard to factors in rule 5(1A) and achieve an appropriate allocation of the seats assigned to Northern Ireland under rule 8 they may recommend that some Northern Ireland constituencies may be outside the limits in paragraph 2 above, provided that they are not less than 95% of the United Kingdom electoral quota and no more than 105% of that quota.'.
	Amendment 14, page 11, line 22, at end insert-
	'(5) The total number of seats to be allocated to any country shall not be more than 10 per cent. above or below the current number of constituencies. If the number of seats allocated by the process described in paragraphs (3) and (4) exceeds or falls below that limit then additional or fewer seats shall be allocated as appropriate sufficient to bring the allocation within 10 per cent. of the current number of seats in the country concerned.
	(6) This adjusted number of seats shall be the allocation for that country for the purposes of these rules.'.
	Government amendments 220 and 221.
	Amendment 204, page 12, line 10, leave out 'The United Kingdom'.
	Government amendment 21.

Chris Bryant: The Government's rhetoric suggests that all parliamentary seats should be of exactly the same size of electorate, but that is not what the Bill says. It allows for a variation of up to 5% either way from the national average and creates three special exemptions for Scottish seats, one of which is held by the Scottish National party and the other two of which are held by the Liberals. We are not opposed to those exemptions, although they look dubious in the context of the Bill's wider attempt to strive for mathematical purity.
	Our argument is that although the majority of seats should indeed be within 5% each way, there are more instances than are allowed for in the Bill where the Boundary Commission should be allowed to exercise a degree of discretion, because this country is made up not just of statistics on a map but of living communities with distinct historical, cultural and political identities that need their discrete representation in the House. A system that delivers mathematical perfection may be aseptically clean, and please the tidy utilitarian and the centralist, but it will in countless cases leave voters on the wrong side of a river, a mountain, a county or ward boundary, or cultural divide and, thereby, fail the fundamental tests that we should be setting.
	Will those boundaries be readily comprehensible to ordinary voters? Will they match the political and cultural aspirations of the discrete communities of the UK? Will they render Members more or less accessible? Frankly, will they look like common-sense boundaries or seem like crazed contortions devised by a centralised desiccated calculating machine? The Government are not just insisting on their mathematical equation, of course; they are also subordinating any other considerations of whatever kind, such as local authority boundaries, to that calculation. Taken together, those measures will lead to ludicrous anomalies.
	Let us consider how some instances would have applied at the last election. Wyre Forest is, quite sensibly, coterminous with its district council, but it would have had 2,131 too many electors for the 5% rule. Likewise, Shrewsbury and Atcham is coterminous with the former district of that name and unchanged after a number of reviews, but it would have had 1,552 too many electors. Bath and North East Somerset council includes two constituencies, Bath and North East Somerset, but it would have had to find 1,886 electors from a neighbouring authority. Even Forest of Dean, comprising the Forest of Dean district council and one ward from Tewkesbury district council, a seat that was completely unchanged at the last review, would have been 383 voters short. That is why we want to change the Bill.
	In many cases, it would be impossible to respect county boundaries. At the last election, Cumbria would have had to find 14,296 electors from neighbouring counties in order to make up its six seats. Northumberland would have had to find 22,529 electors for four seats. Warwickshire's six seats, Kenilworth and Southam, North Warwickshire, Nuneaton, Rugby, Stratford on Avon, Warwick and Leamington, would have needed to find 7,991 electors.

Mark Field: How many electors would Wales have had to find to make up its full quota of 40 seats, which the hon. Gentleman would like to maintain?

Chris Bryant: A very large number, but I am not arguing against greater parity, as I hope I have made clear on several occasions during the Bill's proceedings. However, I am also not in favour of one area of the country having its representation in this House cut by 25%-four times more than any other part of the United Kingdom. That seems to be a swingeing cut, and it will do no good for representation in this House.
	The six seats in Oxfordshire would, on average, have been 1,907 electors over the threshold, so approximately 11,000 Oxfordshire electors would have needed to be shed so that they were in a constituency that was shared with a neighbouring county. Indeed, part of the Prime Minister's own constituency, including the Saxon village of Burford, might have had to be shifted to Gloucestershire. Even Burford priory, the house of civil war Speaker Lenthall, would have had to be summarily moved from Oxfordshire to Gloucestershire.
	In Hampshire, because the rules will not allow Isle of Wight to remain a single seat, the county would have been required to provide 40,000 electors from one or perhaps two of its existing seats. Most significantly, the historic county of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly would have had to find 13,138 electors, or an average of 2,190 per constituency, from Devon to make up the number for six seats. I believe that to be wrong. King Athelstan determined as early as 936 that the east bank of the River Tamar should be the border of Cornwall, and, although it may be true in the words of the Prime Minister that the Tamar is not the Amazon, it certainly is the Rubicon-a river not worth crossing.
	The same is true of metropolitan areas. Warrington would have had 119 too many electors for two seats-an average of 59 per seat. The five seats in Birmingham, each comprising four wards and with electorates of between 73,731 and 75,563, would have been slightly too large and would have had to shed voters elsewhere. In London, Wandsworth would have had 3,427 electors too few for its three seats, Sutton would have had 1,119 too few electors for its two seats, Barnet would have had 371 too many electors for its three seats, and Enfield would have had 219 too few electors for its three seats.

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend is talking about the number of seats within a larger boundary area. I am based in Berkshire, and Slough is very different from the rest of the county. We are one of Berkshire's unitary authorities. If the number were calculated on the basis of the whole of Berkshire, there would be a serious risk that the community of Slough-which is nothing like the community of Windsor and Maidenhead; that is felt by both communities-would be muddled up. I am worried that in his very powerful peroration he is not sufficiently focusing on the cultural differences between different areas in the same county boundary.

Chris Bryant: I have not got to my peroration yet-this is just the beginning-but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. She is absolutely right. My whole argument is that some of the historical boundaries also represent historical cultural identities. We cannot just draw the lines on the map according to the numbers as if people were just statistics: we have to draw them in recognition of the communities and bonds that tie people together.

Mark Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: I will, but I do not want to take up too much time.

Mark Field: Does the shadow Minister recognise that this is the self-same argument that was made, probably in this House, some 170 years ago, in the run-up to the Great Reform Act of 1832, to justify the idea of the cultural importance of maintaining all the seats in Cornwall and Suffolk that had existed since time immemorial? It is a nonsensical argument, and we now have to look towards equality. I disagree with him in that I would like to see the three Scottish seats also taken out of this consideration to ensure that we have the proper equalisation of all 650 seats that should exist in the next Parliament.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman should not try to misrepresent my argument. I am not arguing in the slightest for tiny seats. I am not even arguing that the people of Rhondda alone have the right to elect in perpetuity, even though they have only 50,000 voters. There should be much greater parity, but we need to be able to balance the needs of parity with the needs of local communities and constituencies of interest that exist around the country. There was no constituency of interest in Old Sarum in 1831 and 1832-the only interest was that of Tory Back Benchers who wanted to ensure that they were still able to dole the seat out to one of their family members. So it is an argument not against Labour but against the Conservatives.
	Sheffield will almost certainly be entitled to five constituencies, but with 20 wards it would end up with three constituencies of six wards, which would be too big, and two constituencies of five wards, which would be too small. We would therefore have to split wards in Sheffield or cross the boundaries with Barnsley and Rotherham, which would be tough, as wards in Rotherham are about the same size as those in Sheffield and there are a large number of hills in the way. In the words of Professor Ron Johnston,
	"They are going to have to split wards, I have no doubt about this."

Angela Smith: Under these proposals, it is perfectly possible that one of the wards in my constituency, East Ecclesfield, could end up being split into three parts, with one part going into the seat of Wentworth and Dearne, one part into Brightside, and one part into my seat.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The wards in some metropolitan areas comprise 15,000 or 20,000 voters. Consequently, if the Government push ahead with their proposed 5% leniency either way rather than the 10% that we are advocating, they will have to split wards. Contrary to what the Deputy Leader of the House said last week, and what the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has said, there is not a single ward in England that is split between constituencies-not one.  [ Interruption. ] The latter is chuntering very quietly, but now he is looking at his phone, so I presume he has given up on that point. He can pipe down.
	The end result is that it will become impossible for wards to be used as building blocks, as they currently are without exception in England despite the fact that it is not a requirement of the rules. Voters will have to become psephological experts to know who represents them at each level of government-their councillor, their Member of Parliament and their representatives at other tiers in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Historical communities and towns will be split for negligible benefit, and because of the knock-on effects there will have to be a radical redrawing of virtually every seat in the land.

Mark Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman a third time, if he does not mind. We have very little time for this debate.
	My final point is very important. The proposed reduction in the number of Members of Parliament will have the effect of increasing the electoral quota in all four countries, even England, where it will go up from 71,537 to roughly 75,800. Just 204 current constituencies have electorates within 5% of that number. The knock-on effects, however, mean that it is likely that barely a handful of seats will remain untouched. That was confirmed by the heads of the boundary commissions, who told the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform that the change would result in a complete redrawing of constituency boundaries.

Tristram Hunt: Is my hon. Friend aware that because of the totalising nature of the reforms, Professor Johnston said in his evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that this was exactly the wrong point at which to abolish public inquiries?

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend, who is on the Committee, makes a very valuable point. It was made very clear to the Committee, even in the short time that was allowed it to produce its report, that it would be ludicrous to get rid of public inquiries at this time, when so many changes would be coming up.
	The complete redrawing of virtually every seat in the land will mean not just reselections but new selections for candidates around the country. More than one Conservative MP has already told me that the Conservative Whips have made it absolutely clear to them that if they do not toe the line, the party leadership will make it impossible for them to be selected under the new boundaries. What price accountability then? What price new politics, eh?
	That is why our amendment 9 would provide that the vast majority of constituencies would indeed fall within the 5% rule, but that the boundary commissions should be allowed a wider degree of latitude where they believe there to be an overriding concern, up to a fixed limit of 10%. That 10% is actually the difference between the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary and that of the Deputy Leader of the House.
	Our amendment 13 would make explicit provision for a whole number of seats for Cornwall and the Scilly Isles, for Anglesey and for the Isle of Wight. Amendment 11 would determine that wards could not be split between constituencies, and amendment 12 would mean that factors such as local boundaries could be considered without subordination to the 5% rule, but not going further than the 10% rule.
	This country is not a Rubik's cube devised by a mathematician, it is a complex jumble of communities. Some live in inconvenient numbers in inconvenient places that cannot be readily and symmetrically delineated in equal numbers. I am not defending the right of the Rhondda or anywhere else to its own seat in perpetuity. We need greater parity, and that will mean the amalgamation of seats in many areas, but let us not create so crude a system that 383 voters have to be found for the Forest of Dean or 59 expelled from Warrington. Let us not create such a centralised system that the idiosyncrasies of the towns, villages, islands and cities of this land cannot find their voice in this House.

Charles Kennedy: I say in a genial way what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)-it is a pleasure because, by definition, if I am following him, he must have stopped speaking for once. He has been difficult to avoid over the past two or three weeks in debates on the Bill, and, it seems, everywhere else. I got home on Thursday and there he was in Glasgow on "Question Time".
	Having said that, we have great sympathy with many of the principles that the hon. Gentleman enunciated. I wish to confine my remarks to amendments 182 to 184, which go together. We will seek to press amendment 183 to a vote if the opportunity arises in due course. The amendments are in my name and those of hon. Friends, all of whom are present.
	I wish to speak to the amendments to add to the comment that I made when the Deputy Prime Minister made the initial statement about this whole businesses. I feel that it is incumbent upon me to say a word or two, as my constituency has been put up in lights as some kind of benchmark, albeit that the lighting has been somewhat distorted and much misunderstood. I wish to clarify the matter and refer to the implications that flow from it.
	Over the past 27 years, my constituency has been geographically the largest in the United Kingdom. It was the largest when it was formed in 1983, and some 10 years later, at the time of the boundary changes for the 1992 election, it remained the largest and became larger. At the last general election, it remained the largest and became larger yet again. I have looked back at one representation made to the Boundary Commission about that trend and about the sheer size of what became the Ross, Skye and Lochaber constituency, and indeed I made the same point myself at the hearings on the boundary change. Although I did not oppose the proposals to increase the size of the constituency-one never wants to oppose the inclusion of communities where one might find oneself having to go to seek support-I felt that the increase was impractical and would create unique challenges, as I diplomatically put it, for whoever represented the seat.
	I shall be quite honest with the House: having represented three such vast constituencies over the course of nearly 30 years now, I can say that the current one is by far the most impractical. It has to be said that the other two were gigantic and posed particular problems, but there comes a point at which geographical impracticality sets in and nobody can do the job of local parliamentary representation effectively. I would say that point has now been reached. It is no exaggeration to say that I can drive for five solid hours within the boundaries of the constituency, simply between point A and point B, to carry out one engagement, and then have to drive five hours back. That is just insane.

Ian Lucas: The right hon. Gentleman referred to hearings that took place following the latest boundary review. Does he agree that one of the most pernicious aspects of the Bill is that those hearings will no longer exist? The very worthwhile, and I am sure powerful, representations that were made in his community will be denied the rest of us.

Charles Kennedy: I absolutely agree and endorse entirely the sentiment and substance of what the hon. Gentleman says. I think it represents a negation of democracy to go about something so fundamental in this way.
	I will explain specifically what we propose in the amendments. There are a range of options, as we all know, and nobody has the philosopher's stone. However, the Government are trying to introduce the artificial construct of a capped number of constituencies for the whole UK. Leaving aside party politics, I think the House would agree that there are distinct and unique geographical considerations in places such as the Isle of Wight, in Cornwall, with its relationships between places on each side of the Tamar, and in the highlands and islands, a vast area that is bigger than Belgium. I think the House recognises that in such circumstances, a degree of sensible flexibility is called for. This is not gerrymandering; in fact the seats that tend to be involved could not be gerrymandered in a political sense, because they are not those kinds of community. Largely because of their sheer disparity and diversity, the individual who happens to be their Member will, irrespective of their party affiliation, represent a significant link between those communities and officialdom at the regional, national and even European level. That is being dissipated and completely overlooked in the crazy approach that is being applied, which simply is not suitable and does not make sense given the communities involved.

David Hamilton: Given that we are not going to be partisan, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Scottish borders are unique? It would be ridiculous to talk about Midlothian moving down to take in Peebles and Galashiels or West Lothian moving down to take in the borders. Historically, our areas have had nothing in common, and it would not make sense to make such changes now.

Charles Kennedy: Yes, I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman. In a moment of political frustration when he was Prime Minister of Canada, Mackenzie King said that the problem with Canada was that it had too much geography and not enough history. If anything, we have more than our fair share of both in Scotland, and that certainly comes through in considerations of the type that the Bill gives rise to. That is why the hon. Gentleman's point about his part of the country is very valid.
	Time is tight, and I do not wish to detain the House much longer. I want to stick to principles rather than becoming formulaic. Indeed, I have far better versed colleagues on hand, who can provide chapter and verse and who would leave the rest of us goggle-eyed with their statistics and equations, all of which I endorse, I hasten to add. I am always at my best in politics in such situations. The less one understands the issue, the more confident one can sound-witness the shadow Minister tonight.
	Looking at the proposals, it makes eminent sense that the Western Isles are, and should be, a distinct, unique constituency. I remember growing up when the Western Isles constituency was bisected and was answerable partly to Dingwall and partly to Inverness. That was an absolutely atrocious affront to democracy for the communities there. It is a good thing that we have a unique, distinct constituency now, and I am pleased that it will stay that way.

Angus MacNeil: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the council in north Lewis was Ross and Cromarty, while from Harris southwards was involved with Invernessshire? He is absolutely correct that it was a nightmare, and people still talk about it because there was a lack of accountability-as he said, people on the mainland and officialdom could not be reached.

Charles Kennedy: I very much agree. A similar argument applies to the Northern Isles, and it is absolutely correct that these respective entities have been recognised in the Bill. That is why what is proposed for the Isle of Wight is such an affront. Although the numbers there are huge compared with the island communities that some of us represent, the sense of a natural, distinct identity in the Isle of Wight should surely be reflected in the attitude that officialdom takes. I do not claim to speak with insight for the people of the Isle of Wight, but if that is what people want-representing island communities such as Skye, I can well understand where they are coming from-who are we to pass legislation that thwarts them before they have even got off the starting block in making their argument?

Kevin Brennan: Do not the right hon. Gentleman's amendments, which specify particular communities, whether Na h-Eileanan an Iar or Ynys Môn in Scotland and Wales respectively, show that the sensible, really flexible way forward would be to leave detailed considerations to the Boundary Commission and to give it the flexibility to act, rather include in the Bill specific communities that are to be protected? That is the difference between the limited approach taken by the Government and the extended approach taken by the right hon. Gentleman.

Charles Kennedy: That is a very good suggestion, and I am pleased that Labour Front Benchers are nodding in agreement. That suggestion is contained in the group of amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me, which I mentioned.
	In the Isle of Wight, in particular, there has been considerable uproar about these issues. The uproar is yet to come on the mainland highlands of Scotland, but when it does-I say this in all seriousness and I do make a party political point here- generation upon generation of communities that have stuck with the flame of Liberal tradition and history in the United Kingdom through thick and thin, when it has been all but extinguished in many other parts, will absolutely fail to comprehend why Liberal Democrats in government have put their name to such a measure, which takes no account of the very special peripheral circumstances of communities that have helped to maintain the Liberal cause over generations.
	It is never too late for Governments to think again. This Government should think again, and my colleagues and I will divide the House to encourage them to do just that.

Paul Murphy: It is an enormous privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy). I have always had great admiration for him, as he knows, but the points that he has made about the Government's intransigent and hard-line views are extremely refreshing and, if I might say so, devastating. He rightly goes to the heart of our democracy. At the end of the day, it is the relationship between the Member of Parliament and his or her constituents that, in many ways, identifies British parliamentary democracy. The drift towards an American-style district, which is purely based on numbers and not on communities themselves, is an attack on the very basis of our democracy in the United Kingdom.
	The right hon. Gentleman rightly points, as we can in Wales, to the preposterous anomalies that will result from the Government's policy if it is allowed to continue. There will be enormous constituencies in Wales, just as there will be in Scotland. One constituency might even stretch from the south Wales valleys to Wrexham. It would perhaps not take five hours to drive from one end to the other, but it would certainly take three hours-[Hon. Members: "Five."] It depends how fast one drives, I suppose. I take my hon. Friends' point, and they make it very properly-it is a long way from one part of Wales to the other.
	I have had the privilege of representing a south Wales valley for 23 and a half years in this place, and the valleys of Wales are very distinct. Our communities run north and south, not east and west. Dismembering those valleys or including them with others will make complete nonsense of the community basis of our constituencies, whether in Wales and Scotland, or, indeed, in Cardiff, which the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) will undoubtedly now talk about.

Jonathan Evans: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the history of the valley communities, but he may recall that when Aneurin Bevan was elected to the House in 1929, he represented three valley communities, not one or two. The right hon. Gentleman is over-stressing his point a little.

Paul Murphy: I cannot actually remember when Aneurin Bevan was in the House of Commons, but he is still my great hero. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that the situation he describes was exceptional because of the heads of the valleys situation and he knows my point is valid. Our local authorities in south Wales are based on valleys, and our constituencies are based on valleys. However, the point is that our constituencies are also based on communities. What Government in their right mind could think that the Isle of Wight could be anything other than a constituency? The rigidity with which the Government are dealing with these issues is beyond belief.
	I want now to talk to amendment 14 and to raise the business of Wales in so far as it is represented in the House of Commons. I had the great privilege of being Secretary of State for Wales on two occasions. The fact that I held that office at all was a recognition by our constitution that there should be territorial Secretaries of State-for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. There is machinery in the House of Commons for dealing with Welsh and Scottish matters, although I must tell the Wales Secretary, who is in the Chamber, that the refusal to hold a Welsh Grand Committee on this issue is a disgrace. When I was Wales Secretary, I held 22 Welsh Grand Committees-we debated anything that the people of Wales wanted their public representatives to debate, whether they were Conservative, Liberal, Plaid Cymru or Labour.

Chris Ruane: Why does my right hon. Friend think the Wales Secretary has not held a Welsh Grand Committee?

Paul Murphy: I have not the slightest idea other than that the Secretary of State wants to avoid a debate or the difficult questions that might be raised. The constitutional aspects of the Welsh Grand Committee will be debated elsewhere in the House this week. Wales Members have taken the unusual step of calling a meeting of the Welsh parliamentary party, which was established in the later part of the 19th century-it represents all Wales MPs. It will meet under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on Wednesday as an alternative to the Welsh Grand Committee, but we should never be in this position in the first place. I think the Secretary of State, for whom I have great regard, has caused more trouble by not allowing debate in the Grand Committee.
	The House of Commons has special machinery for dealing with Wales business, but taking 25% of our Members of Parliament away goes completely against the devolution settlement that was voted for by the people of Wales in 1997. That settlement is that we should have not only an Assembly, but proper representation of Members of Parliament from Wales. We certainly should not have less representation than we had in 1832, when it was established that there would be 35 Members.
	The Minister represents the Forest of Dean, which is a distinct community-it has usually been represented by Labour Members, but not since the previous Parliament. The miners there would have recognised, because they understood such issues, that there is a special case in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland for smaller nations to be represented in the UK Parliament. Such representation guards the interests of the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Government, from the Wales Secretary to the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and the rest of their colleagues have singularly failed to understand that that representation, if nothing else, guarantees the Union, because Wales is properly represented as a small nation.
	I am not a Welsh speaker but I very much respect those who are. Some 21% of the people in Wales speak Welsh as their first language. The Welsh Affairs Committee heard that minorities in European countries are properly represented in their Parliaments. That should also apply to Welsh speakers, but under the proposals, fewer Welsh speakers will be represented in Welsh constituencies than now.
	The Government have been terrible on this matter. Wales has suffered in other respects, including from the cuts, but it has suffered very badly because the Government have not understood the nature of the Union. They are supposed to be the great Unionists, but they threaten the Union by taking a quarter of Wales MPs away.

Albert Owen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was not Members of Parliament who decided the minimum number of seats for Wales in this place but the Speaker's Conference? We have been denied a debate on the current reforms in the Welsh Grand Committee, but is it not logical to debate changing the number of seats after a referendum on greater law-making powers for the National Assembly for Wales?

Paul Murphy: Of course.
	Another aspect of the Bill is the Government's singular failure to consult the First Ministers for Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland. Had they held proper consultations on the Bill, it could have been different, but there has been no pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Welsh and Scottish Affairs Committees have condemned the Government for their lack of scrutiny.

Hywel Francis: My right hon. Friend makes a strong point. Does he agree that the excellent report published last week by the Welsh Affairs Committee is an indication of the strength of feeling in Wales that he describes, because it was a unanimous report?

Paul Murphy: Indeed-the Chair of the Committee is my neighbour, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). The Committee's report condemns the Government for how they have dealt with this matter.

Louise Bagshawe: The right hon. Gentleman is making an astonishing argument. Does he not understand that the preservation of the Union will be best served by remedying the democratic deficit and allaying the anger that voters in England feel because they are under-represented compared with voters in Wales and Scotland?

Paul Murphy: Absolutely to the contrary. The Union is protected because it recognises the different parts within it-whether Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Devolution has strengthened the Union, but it will be weakened by these proposals, because the Bill fundamentally goes against the concept of the representation of smaller nations within a United Kingdom.

Nigel Dodds: The right hon. Gentleman served with great distinction as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as well as Secretary of State for Wales. He makes a valid point. At the times of the Belfast and St Andrews agreements, it was clear that part of the settlement was that there should be no question of any change in the representation of Northern Ireland in the House. That was never raised as an issue, because everyone was agreed and settled on it. That was the basis on which devolution took place.

Paul Murphy: The Government have ripped up that settlement as they have ripped up the devolution settlements in Wales and Scotland.

Denis MacShane: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful case for Wales, but the proposals affect many communities in England. My small town of Rotherham, which has three MPs, would rather affiliate or fuse with the Western Isles or Wales than have anything to do with Sheffield. There will be huge anger, concern and distress if we are reduced to American-style districts with boundaries rejigged to suit the Government. They talk of a democratic deficit, but they are destroying the traditions of this House of Commons for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Paul Murphy: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I would not want to come between Sheffield and Rotherham Members, but I understand his point. The Bill is a two-pronged attack on our parliamentary traditions. On the one hand, it reduces the link between a Member of Parliament and his or her constituency and the community that that constituency represents; and on the other, the Government's policies on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland threaten the very integrity of the Union.

Angela Smith: I should like to put on record the fact that Sheffield would love to absorb Rotherham constituencies. Sheffield's much greater fear is that it will end up sharing constituencies with Derbyshire or West Yorkshire or, God forbid, even Leeds.

Paul Murphy: Again, I would not want to interfere in Yorkshire traditions.

Angus MacNeil: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the 88-year-old state of the United Kingdom is a very unbalanced Union? Some 8% to 10% of Members are from Scotland, and there is a percentage of MPs from Wales. However, if the UK were a proper union between nations, the percentage would be more equal between the constituent parts rather than grossly imbalanced. For the record, I would prefer it if Scotland needed to send no one down here, but this 88-year-old state is unbalanced.

Paul Murphy: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that whatever his ideal, he is against a reduction in the number of Scotland and Wales MPs to represent Scottish and Welsh interests in the House.

Eleanor Laing: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. I totally agree with him, and nobody is a fiercer Unionist than I am, but the way to preserve our United Kingdom is to show equal respect to all parts of it, meaning every little corner of every country in the UK. How can he argue that one Member of Parliament should come to the House with a greater weight of votes behind them than Members from other parts of the UK? That is not fair and it is not equal.

Paul Murphy: Is the hon. Lady not aware that many countries, including the United States and Spain, have proper representation of minorities and countries within countries in a very special way? But I suppose that some Members from England would not understand that.

Chris Ruane: My hon. Friend gave some excellent international examples. Is there any danger that those countries will be copying this Tory model in revised constitutions?

Paul Murphy: I very much doubt it. The whole point is that the Government have handled the matter atrociously. At the end of the day, this is not about better democracy; frankly, it is about the fortunes of the Conservative party. In taking that approach, the whole basis of our parliamentary democracy will be threatened.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I wish to speak to my amendment 207, but first may I say how much I agreed with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)-I am surprised to be saying it, but he will be even more surprised-who spoke a great deal of sense about not making constituencies purely numerical compartmentalisations? This country has such a rich history of communities, and when it is a case of a few hundred here or a few hundred there, we ought to be more generous than this very rigorous and rigid approach. Many Government Members, as well as Opposition Members, feel that.
	This matter ought to be looked at in a broader context and have more cross-party support. The one area on which I disagree with Opposition Members is the advantage to the Conservative party, which I think will be remarkably small.

Kevin Brennan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly so early in his remarks. I have read his interesting amendment. Does he hope that the flexibility around historical county boundaries for which he is looking might find more favour in another place, if not with the Conservative Front-Bench team tonight?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It had occurred to me that I might suggest to my noble kinsman that he might wish to move a similar amendment. I look forward to doing that after this evening's debate, if Her Majesty's Government are not kind enough to accept my amendment.
	I hope I do not bore the House by going on about history too much, but not far from here, outside the House of Lords, is a statue of Richard the Lionheart-Richard I-who was a great, noble king of England. It was in his reign that people first came from the shires to advise the king. His reign began in 1189-that is more than 800 years of counties being represented in Parliament. I am sorry to say that those Members who represent boroughs are very much the Johnny-come-latelies-they only got here in 1265. However, those of us representing counties have been here since the reign of Richard I.
	I tabled my amendment because it seems a great shame to get rid of a long-standing historic tradition by accident, by a rule of the pen, by just doing something because it is there and it is tidy. I accept, as the hon. Member for Rhondda did, that we need to have a numerical approximation, but it does not need to be utterly rigid, and it ought, as far as possible, to respect our historical traditions.

Tristram Hunt: Is the hon. Gentleman more and more surprised, when he reads into the Bill, that this proposal comes from the Conservative party? He understands the Conservative party and its traditions, customs and inheritance, yet this utilitarian Bill undermines all that.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Reading his piece in the  Financial  Times, which made a similar point, I did not understand why he was not on the Conservative Benches. His views and outlook seem similar to those of what I might call a high Tory. I am delighted that there are others in the House who might be so described.
	I do not want to make a long speech. I just want to make the simple point that we have these great historic traditions, within which we can adopt what the Government are trying to do. My suggestion would not run a coach and horses through the Bill; it would broadly accept most of it.

Mark Tami: Is it not a sign of how rushed this is that the Government will not listen to any of these arguments? They are intent on smashing this Bill through before the next election.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I was going to make the cheap comment that the Deputy Prime Minister is, of course, a borough Member, so he probably has an objection to the counties, because the borough Members used to get only half the wages of the county Members. Perhaps there is a long-standing objection to the higher pay we used to get.

Sheryll Murray: Does my hon. Friend agree that the historic boundary between Devon and Cornwall needs to be protected? Cornwall has a unique identity; it has its own language, and should be treated as a special case, like the Shetland Isles and the Western Isles, for geographical purposes. Cornwall's identity is special and deserves to be protected.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I have the greatest sympathy with my hon. Friend's view, although, as I said in an earlier intervention, in 1362-I think-one Member represented seats from both Devon and Cornwall simultaneously, so there is at least some historical precedent for Devon and Cornwall having an association. It is important, however, to respect communities as far as possible, so I call upon Her Majesty's Government to be generous, to be kind and to consider the great history of my own county of Somerset- [ Interruption. ] I know that they are not listening, but they might listen eventually. I ask them to be kind and allow us to maintain our great historic traditions. It would not much change the Bill, it is not a very great amendment and I hope that the Government might at least think on it.

Susan Elan Jones: I am not calling merely for kindness from Her Majesty's Government; I am calling for decent, adequate representation for my home nation of Wales within my other home nation of the United Kingdom, of which the nation of Wales is part. It is ironic that tomorrow, in the United States, millions upon millions of people across that large and expansive land will elect their senators, and regardless of the size of the states from which they come, they will each elect two senators. Theirs was a constitution that developed over centuries, and those Americans realised that we ought not to enter into such changes lightly. How different from those on the Government Benches.
	Once upon a time, in the "Encyclopaedia Britannica", there were the words, "For Wales, see England". That is what Government Members are saying today, because they do not understand-or perhaps they do, and this really is just gerrymandering, in which case I am being kind to Her Majesty's Government-that we cannot get rid of 25% of the representatives of a nation within the nation of which it is part, and expect there to be no repercussions. Some Government Members will hop up and down and say, "Isn't this a bit unfair? Aren't some bits not truly equal?", but that is not the point. This is about the devolution settlement, which was granted in a referendum. My party was in favour of devolution, but so-called Unionists on the Government Benches were against it-well, some sort of Unionism that shows itself to be this evening!
	This is a Government who have already decided that Chesham and Amersham is part of Wales, and who decided in the past that Wokingham was too-and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) could not even sing the national anthem. They decided that a representative for Worcester could stand up for the people of Wales.

Ian Lucas: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Susan Elan Jones: I would be delighted to, and I will give way to any Government Members if they have any points to raise.

Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Does she agree that the contempt in which the Conservative party holds Wales was evidenced only last week, when a Secretary of State responded to a parliamentary question by saying that the fact that Herefordshire had been given broadband services should be sufficient for Wales? What sort of Government treat an essential part of our nation in that way?

Susan Elan Jones: The answer is this ragbag Government, who will not stand up for the people of Wales. Indeed, it is no surprise that all this is happening at about the same time that they are showing exactly the same sort of disrespect for the fourth Welsh television channel.

Jonathan Evans: As the hon. Lady develops this victimhood of Wales, perhaps she would like to reflect on the fact that there are 15,000 more electors in my constituency in Cardiff than there are in her constituency. How on earth is that fair? What do I say to my neighbour, just 50 miles away, who has 15,000 more electors? Surely the hon. Lady should recognise that fairness means that each vote, in every part of the United Kingdom, should be of equal value.

Susan Elan Jones: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman go back to his constituents and say, "Yes, of course it's right that we are open to proper boundary commission changes, but we shouldn't undersell our nation of Wales within the United Kingdom."

Owen Smith: Is not the point that my hon. Friend is making-and making very eloquently, I might add-that we should consider the aggregate effect of the Bill on Wales to be just as legitimate a question? We should not just compare one seat with another, but compare England with Wales.

Susan Elan Jones: I agree, and Government Members are showing that they have absolutely no understanding of the historic nature of Wales inside the Union.

Louise Bagshawe: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, as I am happy to rise to her earlier challenge. She says that fairness is not the point. Is not this Bill precisely about fairness? Is it not true that we on the Government Benches are arguing for people and that those on the Opposition Benches are arguing for geography?

Susan Elan Jones: I have always enjoyed reading the hon. Lady's works in the past, but this is about fact: the fact of the nation of Wales inside the United Kingdom.

Albert Owen: In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher said as Prime Minister that there was no such thing as society. Are not this Tory coalition Government now suggesting that there is no such thing as community?

Susan Elan Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend. This Government are also saying that there is no such thing as Welsh society, and it is downright shameful to see Ministers from Wales on the Front Bench who are barely responding to the points being made.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend share my distaste, not to say disgust, at the fact that if the proposal is put through, it will be done against the wishes of both the Welsh Assembly Government and the majority of parliamentarians from Wales in this place, and without any consultation whatever with Welsh society? This Union is a fragile beast. Devolution has evolved very carefully, bit by bit. Does she agree that if what is proposed were done, it would be the first time in the history of this place that such a proposal were agreed against the wishes of the majority of our nation? Does she hope that the other place has more sense and constitutionally challenges this proposal?

Susan Elan Jones: I would indeed hope that that would be the case.
	I do not wish to continue in the same vein, because my point has been made. Indeed, it was made by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), and many others. However, it is a sad reflection that the Government are choosing to wipe away so many centuries of history and to send the message to the people of Wales that they are sending. I do not believe that democracy will be better for this proposal. I do not believe that this proposal will better enable the people of Wales to be represented in this place, and I fear for the consequences of this measure.

John Thurso: I rise in support of amendment 183, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) spoke to so eloquently. I hope he was not referring to me when he said that his hon. Friends behind him had come armed with formula and fact, because I do not have those to hand. However, in supporting the amendment, I want briefly to address the principles behind it.
	What we have in this debate is a straightforward collision of principle. The first principle that the Government have put forward in the Bill is that of equalisation. I have absolutely no problem with that general principle, for many reasons. It will certainly help administratively, as well as with the burden of work. There are many reasons to support that argument, but there is one that I would not have particularly supported, which is the idea it addresses a democratic deficit, because it most certainly does not. It might enshrine some of the inequalities that first past the post delivers, but it will certainly not make anything more democratic. As a broad principle, however, for equal work across the constituencies, the principle of equalisation is a very good one.
	At the same time, we have long accepted an equal principle in our constitution, which is that of community, which is often related to geography. In fact, the very first speech of any substance that I made in this Palace was one that I made at the other end, of the building on exactly that subject, when I argued that we cannot have a representative democracy without considering community and geography, in addition to the mathematical numbers of people involved.

Sarah Newton: Does my hon. Friend agree that by supporting the cross-party campaign to keep Cornwall whole, this Parliament will be demonstrating that it is listening to the people of Cornwall? We have a golden opportunity in this Parliament to rebuild citizens' confidence in our democracy and to ensure that MPs can earn their respect. In respecting the aspirations of the people of Cornwall, with our distinct culture, history and language, we will be taking a step in the right direction and building confidence in this Parliament.

John Thurso: My hon. Friend makes a very full point, although I would not wish to engage with her directly because I want to be brief and allow other Members to take part.

Michael McCann: Some eminent historians have already participated in this debate, so I will go for some other quotations. Groucho Marx said, "Here are my principles, but if you don't like them, I have another set here." In the light of the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), may I ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) how he can reconcile the exceptions for the Western Isles, Northern Isles and other areas when the Government are sticking rigidly to an arithmetical formula in this legislation?

John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman begins to make the precise point that I wish to develop, which is that this Bill already accepts the principle that there are geographical areas or communities that are either too disparate or too distinct simply to be left. There is nothing against that principle in the Bill. One could have argued-historically, it would have been easy to do so-for the old Norse principality of Orkney, which included Caithness. We could have gone back to Caithness, Orkney and Shetland. The Government have recognised that certain geographical difficulties make it important to have regard to them when building constituencies.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Thurso: If the hon. Gentleman will let me first develop my argument, I will happily give way.
	We have heard today from both sides of the House a variety of examples of why the two principles have worked in tension against each other for the benefit of the country. My broad argument is about removing that, suggesting an arithmetical figure, and making two exceptions. The exception of size is almost irrelevant, because it would change the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber and mine, and Inverness would probably disappear. In the tension between those two principles, which have been dealt with by the boundary commission and through inquiry, we have broadly arrived at a workable set of solutions. Therefore, like the amendment, I urge that we take a similar approach while respecting all the Government's principles.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is making a splendid case. Some of us believe that his constituency should be called Thurso. He wants us to support his amendment, which we are happy to do, but I hope he recognises that it might be better not to make allowances just for named constituencies, but to allow greater flexibility throughout the country so that wards and communities do not have to be split. He would then have to vote for our amendment.

John Thurso: I am receptive to the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, if he knew my constituency, he would know that saying it might like to be called Thurso is probably the worst insult that could be delivered to the Royal Borough of Wick and to Wickans. May I put it on record that I am entirely content with Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross-or however much of Ross I may end up with?
	There is a clear need for the Bill to be amended and if, given the lack of time, we cannot achieve that, I sincerely hope that the other place will take a long, strong and hard look at it. This is the sort of constitutional change that simply must not be allowed to slip through on the back of an electoral pact.

Mark Durkan: I want to speak to several amendments that I tabled in this group. Amendments 188, 193, 189 and 192 all refer to issues that arise in the context of Northern Ireland. This group includes other amendments that address issues that arise in the context of Wales and the Scottish islands, and constituencies that include such areas. There is also an amendment relating to the Isle of Wight.
	My amendments are not about "ferrymanders" for constituencies with many islands, nor are they about "valleymanders" because of the geography of Northern Ireland, but they address two points. One is the principle of having a distinct quota in Northern Ireland. Amendments 9, 200 and 202 would give the four boundary commissions four discrete electoral quotas for the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. I have no issue with that, and I agree with it in principle, although I am not here to legislate for other parts of the United Kingdom.
	I tabled amendment 192 because the Government seem to have set their face against separate electoral quotas for constituent parts. It calls for a distinct Northern Ireland quota. If the seat reduction goes through, we will end up with about 15 constituencies. Because the boundaries will be changed every five years, according to the UK quota arithmetic, it could be that under the Sainte-Laguë system for distributing seats to the four constituent boundary commissions the following boundary review might reduce the number of seats in Northern Ireland to 14, and the boundary review after that, depending on what happens with registration, might raise the number again.
	Chopping and changing the number of seats in Northern Ireland every five years without any regard to either a sense of equality or a quota that relates to Northern Ireland's particular circumstances has difficulties. My amendments, which are specifically about Northern Ireland, could stand so I ask the Government to consider them even if they combine to defeat the other amendments, which sensibly and correctly call for discrete quotas. If separate boundary commissions are to be given particular tasks for particular areas, they should at least be mandated to produce a specific quota for those areas.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman makes a good and interesting point in that it underlines the general population instability in the UK. Recent scholars of the Union have pointed out that the Scottish percentage of the UK population has decreased. In the years to come, given the pattern of movement in the UK and the way in which the economy is run from the south-east England, we might see more MPs from England and fewer from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman thus makes a very sensible point.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman spells out exactly the vista that is ahead of us with this Bill. Not only are the different boundary commissions not allowed to take account of the totality of circumstances within the territories for which they are responsible, but they are bound not just by the arithmetic of the UK quota but by the fixed limit of 600 seats. Part of our problem with all this is that we have a fixed limit of seats. There is not one seat more and not one seat fewer; there is just an absolute given number. I can see in that some of the conundrums that will beset this House every single time a boundary review is undertaken.

David Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there is no recognition that in 2005, Scotland moved from 72 MPs down to 58 MPs. If the proposal goes ahead, there will be a further reduction of eight in Scotland. That is an outrageous reduction in MPs and representation throughout Scotland. It is much more than the percentage that is being talked about over here.

Mark Durkan: The hon. Gentleman has spelled out exactly what lies ahead with this Bill. There is uncertainty over the changes that will come with the introduction of this Bill but, in addition, in every single Parliament there will be an arithmetic play-off over who gets the last bundle of seats out of the 600. Does a party qualify under Sainte-Laguë for an extra seat, or does it end up losing a seat in Scotland, Wales or in Northern Ireland? The boundary commission will then be asked to deal with the consequences again.

Kevin Brennan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's approach to this Bill, and the observations from some hon. Members opposite, profoundly misunderstands the nature of the United Kingdom? By equalising-except with some exceptions-the parliamentary constituencies, it completely ignores the fact that we are a united kingdom of nations of different sizes. In the United States, where there are equal congressional districts, the Senate balances the rights of the smaller states. There is no balancing within this Bill for the small nations, which could never ever outvote the interests of the largest nation in this United Kingdom.

Mark Durkan: I think I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. Personally, I am no fan of the United Kingdom. I am not a comfortable subject of it, and, as far as I am concerned, my small nation is not represented in the United Kingdom. My small nation is divided between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. I have no doubt that that will be work for another Bill on another day.
	I want to make the point that the amendment in respect of the distinct Northern Ireland quota has its own merits, even if the Government, wrongly, unwisely and unfairly combine to defeat the other sensible amendments that would entrust boundary commissions with their own discrete quotas.
	The other key area in amendments 188 and 193, and particularly in amendment 193, is to do with ensuring that the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland will not just carefully have to respect things like local government wards, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has spelled out, which the Bill as it stood was already providing for, but will have to have regard to the fact that constituencies in Northern Ireland are also, absolutely by statute, constituencies of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Good Friday agreement, it was decided that parliamentary constituency boundaries would be exactly coterminous with the Assembly multi-seat boundaries, so changing the parliamentary boundaries means changing the Assembly boundaries. Under this Bill, they will be changed every five years, according to arithmetic dictated by the UK in general. We could end up with geo-sectarian issues as a result, and with the unsettling effect of boundary reviews throughout the life of every Assembly and every Parliament. Towns and villages will feel that, because of the boundary arithmetic, they are being pushed out of their natural hinterland and perhaps split between two Assembly constituencies, and that their natural base for their Assembly seat could be lost. There could also be implications for health care and other services.

Russell Brown: My hon. Friend made a point about the people living on the periphery of a constituency chopping and changing between elected representatives at every election. What does he think that will do for the morale of those people, when they come to cast their vote? Is it good for democracy if those people feel that they are not really part of anywhere at all?

Mark Durkan: I do not believe that it is good for democracy. Thankfully, Northern Ireland now has a more settled process, but we face continuous and unsettling boundary reviews, some of which will come into play in time for the next parliamentary election but not in time for the next Assembly election. An Assembly election could therefore take place within boundaries that are about to disappear, and the next parliamentary election could be held within different ones. People will be completely confused. Equally, the number of our constituencies could go up and down, because the Sainte-Laguë method means that we are always in danger of just losing or just gaining a seat at each review.

Mark Tami: Can the hon. Gentleman foresee a situation in which a small town or village could move one way for one election, and back again for the next? In the Northern Ireland context, that could have considerable ramifications.

Mark Durkan: Yes, it could have serious ramifications. I do not need to spell out the names of particular townlands and their hinterlands, but the consequences are obvious, especially for multi-seat constituencies.
	In the various amendments that I have tabled, I am not saying that we are seeking inequality for Northern Ireland. The principle of equality of constituencies should exist, particularly in constituencies that have to elect six Members, supposedly on a PR basis. They should be broadly equal, but they should be equal in a Northern Ireland sense.

Nigel Dodds: On this issue, the hon. Gentleman and I agree about the Bill's impact on the Northern Ireland Assembly. We might not agree on how we see our future, because my party obviously sees Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. He is absolutely right to mention the Assembly constituency boundaries, however. Those boundaries will be about to change when the election is held in 2019, so anyone standing in those elections will have been representing their constituency for four years, but the boundaries will have been changed for the past three years. That is a completely unacceptable situation.

Mark Durkan: The right hon. Gentleman is right to backlight exactly the sort of anomalies that will be created by the Bill. We are meant to be legislating for the whole of the United Kingdom and its constituent parts, so let us not legislate to create anomalies.

Paul Murphy: I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) that a great deal of negotiation and compromise led to the Good Friday agreement, which created the situation in which the parliamentary constituencies equated with the Assembly constituencies. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the actions of the Government are such that, if their proposals are accepted, all that work could be jeopardised at a stroke?

Mark Durkan: I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who served with great distinction in Northern Ireland, not only as Secretary of State but as Minister of State. He was also the person who chaired the Strand 1 negotiations. Everyone rightly praises George Mitchell for his role, but not enough praise is conferred on the right hon. Gentleman for his role, and for the patience and perspicacity that he showed at that time. I must remind him, however, that in those negotiations, some of us were advocating that Northern Ireland should be granted the alternative vote system for Westminster elections as well. He and his right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister resisted that proposal, however.

Angus MacNeil: The crux of my hon. Friend's argument is the instability that will be caused by the five-yearly boundary reviews. Does he feel that an opportunity was missed in Committee when the House rejected an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) that would have established reviews every 10 years? That would have brought greater stability for mainland Members who, rather than looking over their shoulder every five years, would have had some breathing space and a continuous constituency for at least one Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that, unfortunately, the other place might have to ride to the rescue of the Commons yet again?

Mark Durkan: Again, my hon. and Celtic colleague has spoken with great sense. Hon. Members will regret what they are doing with this Bill. They will find themselves living with the consequences, and comparing the boundary process with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority process.

Dai Havard: The uncertainty to which the hon. Gentleman alludes has particular resonance in Northern Ireland, and extraneous matter can fill many vacuums, as we have seen in the past. Does he not agree, however, that that uncertainty, coupled with a fixed-term Parliament, would not be good for democracy, because Members elected under such a system would be interested not in representing the people but in the next stage in the development of their own electoral process?

Mark Durkan: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Like so many other hon. Members, he reinforces exactly the kind of malign scenario that will emerge as a result of the Bill. Boundary reviews will take place during the life of every Parliament, with an absence of local inquiries, if the Government get their way. Also, as we know from our discussions in Committee, the Secretaries of State will be able to make modifications when laying reports. Boundary commissions will consult first on one report, then on another. The third report will then be final, but the Secretary of State may lay it with modifications.

Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend agree that an unforeseen consequence of this electoral hokey cokey, with villages and communities coming in and out of constituencies every five years, could be competition for additional casework between Members of Parliament, as happens under the additional Member system? It would be utterly unhealthy if a Member of Parliament were seeking to represent the area that he would be representing in the next Parliament rather than his present one.

Mark Durkan: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not sure that the public would object to lots of local representatives working hard for them and their interests, but I understand the complication that he alludes to.
	There is a glaring absence of any reference to the Northern Ireland Assembly in the Bill. We have not even been consulted or communicated with about the process. I have tabled amendments that deal with that. Whatever the Government's attitude to all the other very worthy amendments, I ask them to bear in mind that they are in serious deficit in the attention that they are giving to Northern Ireland.

Andrew George: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who makes a case for which I have a great deal of sympathy. I should like to express the great frustration of hon. Members representing Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly that we have not had an opportunity to advance the voice of, and the case for, Cornwall in debates on a Bill that will have a significant impact on Cornwall and its future. We should really have had such an opportunity before but, because of the arcane way in which we still manage our business in the House, we are left with the clock ticking away, and with very little time to make our case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said earlier, this is a clash between two principles. The first is that of equalisation, and no one could properly argue against that. However, we must also consider the important principle of respecting tradition, history and geography.
	I draw attention to my amendments 196 and 4. One deals with the principle of discretion for the Boundary Commission to apply not just to Cornwall, but to other places, too. Sometimes people are not aware of the potential consequences that flow from their own community, their own identity and their own place. It is important to have an amendment that provides the Boundary Commission with a great deal more discretion. The other amendment deals with the historic and essential boundary of Cornwall, the integrity of which must be respected and protected.

Dan Rogerson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his contribution and on his amendments, to which I have appended my name. On the principle of allowing areas to opt out of the system, it is important to note the ability to opt to be under-represented. Accusations have been made that the provisions are about areas seeking to be over-represented in order to get away from the general principle of equalisation. In fact, the Liberal Democrat amendment says precisely the opposite-that the boundary may be so important in a particular area that the people in it can signal that they wish to be under-represented, as it were.

Andrew George: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am grateful to all five of my parliamentary colleagues in Cornwall. With me, that makes six standing shoulder to shoulder together on this issue. We are not asking for a favour, only for the distinctiveness of Cornwall to be recognised. In a sense, we will be more unfavourably treated. As the statistics pan out for the electoral register for Cornwall as a whole, the best guesstimate is that, if we go for a rounding down of the constituencies, we will end up with an electorate nearly 10% higher than the quota.

Eleanor Laing: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the proud duchy of Cornwall and its proud Cornishmen would feel any less Cornish or any less proud of their ancient historical traditions just because one of their constituencies happened to have in it a small part of another country. Surely Cornwall is worth more than that.

Andrew George: It is very nice of the hon. Lady to take an interest in Cornwall and I appreciate that. If she wants to identify the voices of Cornwall, however, she might do well to look at the three Conservative Members who represent three Cornwall constituencies. They are very clear on this issue, and they disagree with her on that particular point. The fact is that it is the thin end of the wedge and a slippery slope. We are moving in the opposite direction from the one many want to see-giving Cornwall a stronger say and enabling it to build the identity of which it is enormously proud.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Andrew George: I shall give way in a moment, but let me make a little more progress.
	It is vital for people to understand that we are talking about a Cornwall that has a long tradition of culture and a separate language, as others have mentioned. No English counties have a language of their own in the sense that Cornwall does-and it has been recognised by the European Commission and other authorities. The language is recognised and specified in the European charter.

Angela Smith: I remind the House that Cornwall, along with South Yorkshire, enjoyed-if that is the right word-objective 1 status because of its need for economic growth and because of the poverty from which it has suffered. Does that not suggest that Cornwall needs all the representation it can get at the moment to make sure that its economic voice can be heard in this House?

Andrew George: I agree. Of course we would like to have more than average representation, but we are not asking for special favours. I have said already that we are not asking for favouritism, only for the distinctiveness of Cornwall to be respected.

Alan Whitehead: Would the hon. Gentleman associate his remarks about Cornwall with other areas in the south of England, such as the Isle of Wight, which are in exactly the same circumstances? The consequences of not associating his remarks with those other areas would mean that the Boundary Commission would have to take completely arbitrary decisions, not based on any community considerations, so part of the integral community would have to be redistributed elsewhere.

Andrew George: I am grateful for that intervention, as I entirely support what the hon. Gentleman said. Indeed, I have appended my name to amendment 183, which brings Cornwall and the Isle of Wight together. It recognises that there are already parts of the country whose geographic boundaries need to be respected. The primary principle underlying amendment 196, to which I think the hon. Gentleman alludes, is that of giving the Boundary Commission some discretion. Although amendment 183 acknowledges that there are five other parts of the country whose boundaries should be respected, we do not really know how many such areas there are. Other places elsewhere in the country might be relevant when the Boundary Commission is undertaking its work, and hon. Members, completely unaware of the situation, might find that a line has been drawn slap, bang through the middle of their constituency-and at that point, they will cry foul and ask how it happened.
	When people wake up to the full reality of the way the boundaries are to be divided, they will understand that it will result in the effective pasteurisation of parliamentary constituencies. They will be homogenised and we will see the denigration of place, the denigration of identity and the promotion of placelessness and bland uniformity. The Boundary Commission should be given the discretion to recognise identity, culture, tradition, history, geography and so forth, so that places with strong identities, historic communities, historic counties and, indeed, historic boroughs do not find themselves divided up for the satisfaction of the Government's need for so-called statistical equalisation.

Toby Perkins: The hon. Gentleman has made a powerful case about Cornwall. I believe that the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) would achieve what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve. We all accept the need for equalisation, but we also need to allow the Boundary Commission to do what it is paid to do-to recognise that it is not all about numbers; it is also about communities. That is how democracy works: people vote for us; they understand the areas we represent, and we understand them.

Andrew George: I shall support every amendment that achieves the objects set out clearly in my two amendments.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned history and culture, and there is of course the Gaelic proverb:
	"S fhearr caraid sa chuirt na crun san sporran"-
	it is better to have a friend in court-and, indeed, Parliament -than money in the purse. With that in mind, I say to my Celtic cousins from Cornwall that Karl Marx in one of his madder moments said that the fate of the Celtic races was to be ruled by the Nordic races. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the treatment of Cornwall could thus be construed as Marxist? Did he ever imagine that when this coalition Government set out their aims, they would end up with Marxism in Cornwall?

Andrew George: Let me quote someone else. It was Matthew Arnold who said that it was the desire of a centralised state
	"to render its dominions... homogenous".

Stephen Gilbert: This issue strikes at identity, community and history-all encapsulated in amendment 183, to which I and other Liberal Democrat colleagues have appended our names. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the House should divide on amendment 183?

Andrew George: I do. I wish to bring my remarks to a close, as other Members wish to contribute to the debate.
	I am glad that we have had the opportunity to talk about Cornwall. I hope that the Front Benchers are listening to our debate and I hope that it will not be necessary for an unelected Chamber to sort out the mess and that elected Members will ensure that we have the right type of election and the right type of boundary for elections to this place. We are not asking for any favours for Cornwall, as I have said. We just want the Government to be fair-with "fair" being a favourite word of the coalition.
	I shall support every amendment that achieves the objects that I have set out. I believe that it is a self-confident Government who are prepared to listen and to change their ways when the evidence is clearly opposed to the general direction in which they are proceeding.

Siobhain McDonagh: I was prompted to speak solely by the words of the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe), who said that this was about people. It is not about people; it is about dividing areas and regions into total numbers, rather than understanding the community. The communities in Devon and Cornwall, in Wales, in Northern Ireland and in Scotland exist in my part of south London-homogenised suburban south London-but people live in villages, they live in communities, and they want to be represented by people.
	Some of my constituents do not vote. They cannot vote. They do not register. We all know that someone who is black, someone who lives in private rented accommodation or someone who is aged between 17 and 24 is unlikely to register, but those people still need to be represented. When they come to my surgery, I do not ask them whether they are from Afghanistan or from Germany. They live in my area, and I represent them.
	We know that harsh, strict, numerical determination never takes account of the value of what we all do as individuals in representing our areas and communities. Dare I suggest that that is part of the big society? A big society that has no representatives and does not understand the meals on wheels ladies, the people from Somalia, or the people who enjoy whatever it is that they enjoy will be unable to represent. If we cannot represent and understand our areas, we are completely lost, and the value of our system is lost.
	The role of constituency Member of Parliament is not respected in the House of Commons, although it is talked about a great deal. The essence of our democracy lies in encouraging people to vote when, having lost faith in parties and the system, they are still prepared to confide to their Member of Parliament-someone they do not know-the greatest secrets about their lives and their values, and to tell that Member of Parliament about a pub or post office in their community that is about to close.
	If we break up our areas, whether they are urban like mine, suburban or rural, we will rue the day. We must hang on in order to continue to make our political system work-and our political system works because people see us representing them and understanding their communities.

Andrew Turner: I tabled amendment 1 to protect the Isle of Wight. The needs and interests of the people of the Isle of Wight are different from those of people living on the mainland. However, it is not only on behalf of the islanders that I oppose the change; my proposal makes better sense for the mainland as well. The island needs local representation, whether by one or two Members of Parliament. What will not do is the creation of one whole constituency with an electorate of 76,000, with the remaining 34,000 forming part of another constituency extending across the sea to the mainland.
	On 15 July, the Deputy Prime Minister told the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform that we must
	"come to terms with the need for extensive political reform in order to re-establish public trust in what we do here".
	I agree with the Deputy Prime Minister's words, but it is hard to reconcile them with his actions. His aim is the establishment of 600 constituencies of more or less equal size. He says that he wants greater public trust and transparency, yet he has arbitrarily decided that exceptions will be made for some Scottish islands and not others. That is it: no discussion, no consultation, no justification. I am not criticising the Deputy Prime Minister for what he said, but he has not satisfactorily explained why Isle of Wight residents are not entitled to the consideration that is given to Scottish islanders. Like the Scottish islands, we on the Isle of Wight are physically separate from the mainland, but our uniqueness is totally ignored. We have no roads, trains or planes-

Albert Owen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Turner: Not for the moment, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
	What we have is a limited and sometimes eye-wateringly expensive ferry service. It is necessary to live on an island to understand how limiting that can be. Some islanders rarely or never travel to the mainland, and there are times when it is impossible to reach it because of weather or sea conditions. Ferries themselves provide evidence that the interests of electors on opposite sides of the Solent are very different. The Lymington River Association is vehemently opposed to the new ferries on the Yarmouth-Lymington route, while islanders who do travel to the mainland need the improved services that the companies are trying to offer.

Albert Owen: Like the hon. Gentleman, I represent an island community. Although it is linked to the mainland by a bridge, that does not make it any less an island community. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those special characteristics must be preserved, and that the Isle of Wight, with a population of 100,000, and Ynys Môn, with a population of 50,000, are equal island communities whose uniqueness should be recognised?

Andrew Turner: I understand that perfectly.
	As well as the two Scottish island constituencies, there are other arbitrary exceptions to the principle of fair votes. However, it is not all about fairness or unfairness. It is about allowing people to be consulted and to have the representation that they want, even if that means keeping a larger constituency. That is why the decision should be made by the independent Boundary Commission, rather than according to the diktat of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	My constituency is the largest in the United Kingdom, with 110,000 voters. I am happy to continue to be judged by those people when it comes to whether I represent them effectively. The Deputy Prime Minister paid me the compliment of saying that I was well known as an "outstanding constituency MP". If that is the case, why is he determined to fix something that is not broken, particularly when his reforms are unwanted by the people who are affected by them?
	I must end my speech, because we are running out of time. Let me finally say that it is a terrible thing to have one's constituency divided. I recognise that that will happen in some cases, but what I do not like is the idea of the constituency being divided and part of it sent to the mainland.

Chris Bryant: So far this evening, the Government have gained no supporters for their argument. I think that there is a good reason for that. The arguments presented by Members on both sides of the House-including the persuasive argument of the former leader of the Liberal Democrat party, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy)-can be summed up very simply as "This House does not believe in the Government's construction of a mathematical exercise in order to create constituencies". Everyone who has articulated an argument this evening has expressed the belief that, in the case of Cornwall, Scotland, the south Wales valleys or the whole of Wales, we need to ensure that minority voices are heard loud and clear in the House.

Kevin Brennan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Bryant: I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind. I know that the Minister needs to be able to reply.

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When you called the Front-Bench spokesmen, at least a dozen Labour Members were still waiting to speak. It is clear that not enough time has been allowed for the debate. Can anything be done to enable those Members to put their points on the record?

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order. The point about the amount of time allowed for the debate has been taken on board, but that is a decision for the Government rather than the Chair.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) knows perfectly well that I entirely agree with him. I note that at least 12 Labour Members have not yet been able to speak, and that is why I will speak very briefly now.
	Let me just say this to the Government. The danger is in their desire to create mathematically perfect constituencies and to allow only 5% of leeway to the boundary commissions, and in creating the exemptions for three seats in Scotland, they will undermine the three Scottish constituencies and make them seem like rotten boroughs. The Government will make the whole country look like a mathematical exercise, and not like anything that recognises the facts of life.
	When miners went down the mines in the Rhondda in the 19th and 20th centuries, they had a number stamped on their miners' lamps. The people of this country do not want to be just numbers on a miner's lamp. The people of this country want to be recognised for the constituencies and the communities that are represented in it, and it is their voices that should be heard in the House rather than just the statistics with which the Minister agrees.

John Mann: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You said in response to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) that a point about who gets to speak is not a point of order for the Chair. A point about which amendments are selected is, however, a point of order for the Chair. My amendment to this part of the Bill deals with the same kind of special privilege that other Members have addressed in their amendments, but it was not selected. I appreciate that the Chair has a difficult task. However, my point of order is if this Bill had been taken in full Committee, would not my amendment have been allowed and debated?

Mr Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has raised this point previously, and I stress once again that it is not a point of order. He cannot challenge what amendments are selected. The selection of amendments is the Speaker's prerogative, and that has been decided. I now call the Deputy Leader of the House.

John Mann: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr Deputy Speaker: No, I have ruled on that.

John Mann: It is an incorrect ruling.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think the Member will wish to withdraw that comment, for all our sakes.

John Mann: I withdraw that comment, but further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point of order I am raising is that in full Committee any amendment that is put in the Committee is eligible to be taken, and it is only the time constraints that have required you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to rule out certain amendments, including my own.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not going to push this any further. I have made a ruling, I stand by that ruling and the Member must accept it. I call Mr Heath.

David Heath: This large group of amendments reflects a range of views about representation in the nations and the way in which the boundary commissions should go about the task of drawing up constituency boundaries.
	Let me start with a simple statement of principle. In a single-Member constituency system, there must be broad equality in constituency size so that one elector means one vote between, as well as within, constituencies. I do not think that is a particularly controversial remark. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) calls it an attitude that is "crazed" and "desiccated"-it is interesting that one can be both simultaneously-but I do not accept that. My concern about the amendments in this group is that they would all compromise on equality for a range of motivations, some entirely understandable, others less so.
	The amendments seek to make exceptions for, variously, the Isle of Wight, Cornwall, Ynys Môn and the highlands of Scotland, and we recognise the pride and sense of history that underpins each of these claims for special treatment. The Minister with responsibility for political and constitutional reform, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), visited the Isle of Wight on 1 October and Ministers at the highest possible level have met campaigners from Cornwall to hear their arguments. However, it is not the case that the only argument that was made was in favour of the status quo; I think the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) recognised that in a previous debate. For example, a cross-Solent constituency might have advantages. The Isle of Wight council has recently made a submission to the Government to create a Solent local enterprise partnership covering the economic area of south Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Where appropriate, therefore, the island is clearly willing to develop its long-term interests in conjunction with its mainland neighbours. There are a number of shared opportunities between the island and the mainland and I believe this willingness to engage could also be demonstrated in a cross-Solent constituency.

Ian Murray: Had the Government allocated enough time for us to debate this topic this evening, the hon. Gentleman would have heard a cross-section of views not only from Wales, Devon, Cornwall and colleagues from Northern Ireland and Scotland, but from the whole country, expressing concern about communities being split up and boundaries being drawn on the basis of strange anomalies or purely in accordance with mathematics. In fact, the Government are in danger of ensuring that people such as those mentioned by colleagues are under-represented in the House, not over-represented.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a long intervention.

David Heath: I simply do not understand this argument that having equal constituencies with a margin of plus or minus 5% represents an outrageous innovation that is anti-democratic. That is simply not the case.

Several hon. Members: rose -

David Heath: Let me make some progress, as we have very little time.
	More fundamentally, it is the duty of each MP to represent all constituents no matter whereabouts in the constituency they live. I understand the views of my colleagues from Cornwall-my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson)-but I simply do not accept that Cornwall will be any the less "Cornwall" if it is represented by a Member who also represents part of Devon. I believe a Member of Parliament who is doing their job can represent constituents on either side of the Tamar equally.

Several hon. Members: rose -

David Heath: I have not got time to give way, I am afraid.
	I also want- [Interruption.] I also want to make it plain that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) made- [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has said he will give way a little later. Let us be a little more patient. People want to hear what is being said.  [Interruption.] I am sure the hon. Member can see behind him, Mr Bryant; he does not need any assistance.

David Heath: I am most grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am trying to cover quite a lot of ground for colleagues in a relatively short period.
	I wanted to address the issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)-and I know that if my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) been able to contribute to the debate he would have said very much the same thing about the highlands of Scotland.  [Interruption.] May I correct the hon. Member for Rhondda? He kept on saying that there are three exceptions in the Bill, but there are not three exceptions; there are two exceptions and they are, for very clear reasons, for the two island constituencies where contacts are very difficult. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute can make a very strong case for his own constituency as well, but I do not accept that having a maximum size-which it has been said is the size of Belgium-is unreasonable for the Scottish Members representing highland constituencies.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made a very important point on Northern Ireland. I expected him to make the connection between parliamentary constituencies and Assembly constituencies. Instead, he concentrated on the quota and the Sainte-Laguë formula, and he raises an important point that we need to look at. I want to make absolutely sure that the system is fair to all parts of the United Kingdom, and I will certainly look at that point.
	I find it very difficult to understand the argument that the Welsh constituencies are badly treated by being treated the same as other constituencies, such as those on my side of the Bristol channel. I do not know whether changing the name of Somerset to Gwlad yr Haf would have the desired effect of giving us twice as many representatives, but I do not accept that people in the west country should be disadvantaged in that way.  [Interruption.] No, what is patronising is to pretend that we cannot go from one part of a constituency to the other because there is a hill or a river in the way. That is nonsense.
	I briefly want to address the effect of Government amendments in this group, which are technical in nature. Amendments 220 and 221 allow the boundary commissions to use the most up-to-date register in areas where publication is delayed. If these amendments are not agreed to, in some areas the boundary commissions would have to use the register before the results of the annual canvass were included in it. I therefore hope we can all agree that the amendments must be made.
	Amendment 21 makes consequential amendments to other legislation that refers to particular constituencies by name. We need to make that other legislation consistent with the new rules for constituencies in the Bill.
	I hope the House will be able to support the Government amendments, and will reject the other amendments if they are pressed to a Division, as I believe they introduce inequalities-and inappropriate inequalities at that-that I personally cannot accept.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 326.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	 The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
	 Amendment proposed: 11, page 10, line 10, at end insert-
	'(1A) A Boundary Commission shall ensure that-
	(a) in England, no district or borough ward shall be included in more than one constituency;
	(b) in Northern Ireland, no local authority ward shall be included in more than one constituency;
	(c) in Wales, no unitary authority ward shall be included in more than one constituency;
	(d) in Scotland, regard shall be had to local authority ward boundaries.
	(1B) The Boundary Commission for England shall where practicable have regard to the boundaries of counties and London boroughs; and in any case no constituency shall include the whole or part of more than two counties or London boroughs.
	(1C) The Boundary Commission for Wales shall where practicable have regard to the boundaries of unitary authorities; and in any case no constituency shall include the whole or part of more than two unitary authorities.'.- (Chris Bryant.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 327.

Question accordingly negatived.
	.
	Amendment 183, page 10, leave out lines 18 to 25 and insert-
	 'Whole numbers of constituencies
	6 (1) The following shall be allocated whole numbers of constituencies by whichever Boundary Commission is responsible for them-
	(a) Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands council areas;
	(b) Comhairle nan Eilean Siar council area;
	(c) the Cyngor Sir Ynys Môn Isle of Anglesey county area;
	(d) the Isle of Wight county area;
	(e) the County of Cornwall and Isles of Scilly council areas;
	(f) the Highland Council area;
	(g) the Argyll and Bute Council area.
	(2) The number of constituencies to be allocated to each area shall be determined by dividing the electorate of the area or areas concerned by the United Kingdom Electoral Average and rounding to the nearest whole number, unless this would mean that rule 4(1) could not be satisfied, in which case the area concerned will be allocated the smallest number of constituencies required in order to satisfy that rule. Each area must be allocated at least one whole constituency.
	(3) In this rule "United Kingdom Electoral Average" means (where E is the electorate of the United Kingdom)-
	E / 600 .'.- (Mr Kennedy)
	 Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 315.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendments made: 220, page 11, line 27, leave out from first 'on' to 'in' in line 28 and insert 'the relevant version of a register of parliamentary electors'.
	221, page 11, line 30, at end insert-
	'(None)
	'For this purpose the relevant version of a register is the version that is required by virtue of subsection (1) of section 13 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to be published no later than the review date, or would be so required but for-
	(a) any power under that section to prescribe a later date, or
	(b) subsection (1A) of that section.'.
	Amendment 21, page 12, line 18, at end insert-
	'( ) In Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (offices disqualifying for particular constituencies)-
	(a) in the entry for Member of Her Majesty's Commission of Lieutenancy for the City of London, for "The constituency comprising the whole of" there is substituted "Any constituency comprising the whole or part of";
	(b) in the entry for Governor of the Isle of Wight, for "The Isle of Wight" there is substituted "Any constituency comprising the whole or part of the Isle of Wight".
	( ) In section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (registration officers), for paragraph (b) of subsection (2) there is substituted-
	"(b) in relation to any constituency part of which consists of some or all of the area of the City and the Inner and Middle Temples, the Common Council shall appoint an officer to be registration officer for that part of the constituency."'.- (Mr Heath.)

Clause 12
	 — 
	Boundary Commission proposals: publicity and consultation

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move amendment 205, page 12, line 21, at end insert-
	'(A1) In relation to a report under section 3(1) that a Boundary Commission is required by section 3(2) to submit before 1 October 2013-
	(a) a Boundary Commission shall make information available via their website, and if they see fit by other means, on their proposed general approach to the application of Schedule 2;
	(b) representations with respect to this proposed general approach may be made to the Commission during a specified period of eight weeks; and
	(c) the Commission shall take into consideration any such representations duly made prior to the provisional determination of any recommendations affecting any constituency.
	(A2) A Boundary Commission's "proposed general approach" shall include, but need not be limited to-
	(a) the processes by which they intend to seek to ensure the application of rule 2, and in the case of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland of rule 7, including the circumstances in which they will consider recommending that wards, electoral areas and divisions should be divided between two or more constituencies, and the information on which they intend to rely in determining how to carry out such a division, and
	(b) the extent to which they intend to take into account each of the factors described in rule 5(1), and in the case of the Boundary Commission for England of rule 5(2).'.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 206, page 12, leave out lines 22 to 34 and insert-
	'(1) Where a Boundary Commission has provisionally determined to make recommendations affecting any constituency-
	(a) they shall take such steps as they see fit to inform people in the constituency of the effect of the proposed recommendations and that a copy of the recommendations is open to inspection at a specified place within the constituency,
	(b) they shall make available via their website, and if they see fit by other means, copies of their proposed recommendations and information on their effect, together with such information as they have on the number of the electorate in every sub-division of every ward, electoral division and electoral area in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, and
	(c) representations with respect to the proposed recommendations may be made to the Commission by people whether in or outside any given constituency during a specified period of 12 weeks, and the Commission shall take into consideration any such representations duly made.'.
	Amendment 15, page 12, leave out lines 35 to 41 and insert-
	'(1A) A Boundary Commission may cause a local inquiry to be held for the purposes of a report under this Act where, on publication of a recommendation of a Boundary Commission for the alteration of any constituency, the Commission receives any representation objecting to the proposed recommendation from an interested authority or from a body of electors numbering one hundred or more.
	(1B) Where a local inquiry was held in respect of the constituencies before the publication of the notice mentioned in subsection (1) above, that subsection shall not apply if the Commission, after considering the matters discussed at the local inquiry, the nature of the representations received on the publication of the notice and any other relevant circumstances, is of an opinion that a further local inquiry would not be justified.
	(1C) In subsection (1A) above, "interested authority" and "elector" respectively mean, in relation to any recommendation, a local authority whose area is wholly or partly comprised in the constituencies affected by the recommendation, and a parliamentary elector for any of those constituencies.'.
	Amendment 209, page 12, leave out lines 35 and 36.
	Amendment 194, page 12, line 35, after '(2)', insert 'Subject to subsection (2A) below'.
	Amendment 195, page 12, line 36, at end insert-
	'(2A) The Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland shall cause a public inquiry to be held for the purposes of a report under this Act covering the whole of Northern Ireland, where any representation objecting to a report has been received from the council of a district in Northern Ireland or from a body of parliamentary electors in Northern Ireland numbering one hundred or more from two or more constituencies.'.
	Amendment 210, page 12, leave out line 41.

Eleanor Laing: I am glad that we are going to be able to debate all these amendments in this one debate. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, cannot be present, as he would have relished the opportunity to speak to these amendments on behalf of our Committee. I am pleased to see that other members of the Committee are in the Chamber, however, and they may wish to echo those sentiments. In the absence of the Chairman, I shall speak to amendments 205 and 206, which arise from the Committee's report on the Bill-the nearest that we got to pre-legislative scrutiny.
	The purpose of amendments 205 and 206 is to ensure that consultation by the boundary commissions is as meaningful as possible. Amendment 205 would require them to hold a one-off, short consultation on how they intended to approach the division of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland into constituencies before the first review-the 2011 to 2013 review-took place. It would allow people to give their views on the extent to which, for example, county boundaries should be crossed and which ward sub-division might be desirable and, where wards are sub-divided, on the kinds of sub-division to be used. The Committee has asked the House simply to consider whether amendment 205 would-we hope that it would-increase the perceived legitimacy of the boundary commissions' decisions, and reduce the likelihood of local frustration and the possibility of legal challenge to their recommendations.
	Amendment 206 is intended to improve the quality of the consultations that the boundary commissions conduct under each proposed future review. As the Committee said in its report:
	"The legitimacy of the next boundary review in the eyes of the public is likely to be strongly influenced by their ability to participate effectively."
	The amendment would allow people to make representations to the commissions on constituencies other than the one in which they live, and it would require information on the number of electors within sub-ward divisions of constituencies to be made available nationwide. I appreciate that the Government are working to a very tight timetable and we do not have very much time for debate this evening. Members wish to raise important matters, so I shall be as brief as I can.
	The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that people have, first, the information about their locality that they need to make to the boundary commission a proposal that keeps within the rules, and, secondly, the right to make recommendations about constituencies other than the one in which they live so that that they are not prevented from making suggestions about their locality that would otherwise take their constituency outside the range of the 5% flexibility permitted. I appreciate that I have truncated the case, for the reasons that I have set out, but I am sure that hon. Members who are interested in the matter and, certainly, Ministers will already have read the Select Committee's report and fully appreciate the importance of the points that I have put to the House.
	The Government may not wish to accept the amendments, but they are intended entirely to be helpful and constructive. The Committee took a cross-party position, and the amendments are not political. Given the timetable to which the Government are working, however, they may not wish to consider the matters. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the Committee's amendments, how will the boundary commissions ensure that consultation with local people is meaningful, and that the mass of the new rules is not so constructed that local feeling on constituency boundaries cannot be taken into account?
	I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the point that I make on behalf of the Committee, and members of the Committee who sit on the Opposition Benches may wish to take those points further, but I shall move on from the Committee's position to speak on my own behalf. We know from experience that the boundary commissions have taken a very long time to consider their reports in previous decades, and that an enormous amount of time and taxpayers' money has been spent on consultations with them.
	The Committee is being constructive with amendments 205 and 206, by trying to help the Government to improve the perception of the commissions' legitimacy, but I argue, from my point of view as the representative of a constituency that has been changed by almost every boundary review over the past century, that most of the time taken up by consultation with the boundary commissions has been taken up by political parties. There has not-I defy anyone to come forward with evidence to show that there has-been an enormous outcry from individuals, saying, "I don't want to be in Epping Forest; I want to be in Brentwood and Ongar."
	Most people in this country accept that the boundary commissions have to do the work that they do, and that, having one vote of one value and equal-sized constituencies, is the right way to a fair, modern democracy that properly represents every person who lives in any part of the United Kingdom. The boundary commissions have not been inundated with individual members of the public whose hearts have been broken by the thought of being represented by a different Member of Parliament.

Russell Brown: I cannot speak about Epping Forest or Brentwood and Ongar, but, when the boundaries changed in Scotland in 2005, the proposal for my constituency was to take out two large wards from the town of Dumfries itself. People were so angry that they mounted their own campaign, which they took to a public inquiry, and they won the case that they should not be separated. It is wrong for the hon. Lady to say that only political parties undertake such activity. The strength and voice of communities should be heard, but the Bill will not give those communities the voice that they deserve in a democratic society.

Eleanor Laing: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, and I understand how strongly the people of Dumfries feel, but that is not the point of democracy. In a modern democracy what counts is not valleys, mountains, rivers and perceived ancient boundaries, as we heard argued in the previous debate; what counts is that every person in the United Kingdom has a voice of equal value and votes.

Mark Tami: The hon. Lady has made the point a number of times tonight about everything being of equal value and equal size, so why does she support measures that take three seats in Scotland and count them differently? Her argument would be stronger if she opposed those measures in the Lobby.

Eleanor Laing: I do not support them. The matters on which we have just voted were rather more complicated than that, and went further than three seats.

Mark Tami: So why did you vote for it?

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman does not know how I voted-that is my business.  [ Interruption. ] Well, I was not in the Lobby with him.  [ Interruption. ] It is hardly a secret, is it? The matters on which we have just voted were rather wider than that, and so I naturally loyally supported my Government-or part of my Government.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman has not been here throughout these debates.

Mark Tami: I have been here all day.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman has not been here throughout the five days of the Committee stage.

Mark Tami: I have.

Eleanor Laing: Well if he has, he has: I am sorry that I did not notice.  [ Interruption. ] I have said on more than one occasion-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I know that people have strong views on this, but, Mr Tami, it would help if you proceeded by intervention rather than by shouting across the Chamber: it is very distracting. Thank you very much.

Eleanor Laing: Thank you for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. Regardless of where the hon. Gentleman has been, he can have this argument with the Government, but he cannot have it with me, because I have said on more than one occasion-and I will say it again, but it does not really matter, because nobody listens to what I say-

Mark Harper: I do.

Eleanor Laing: I am much gratified by that.
	I would not have had any exceptions in the Bill; I think that the exceptions are wrong. The matter at issue is that every vote in the United Kingdom should be of one value and of one weight-that every Member of Parliament who comes to this House should have, within a reasonable tolerance, the same number of potential voters, voting for them or otherwise.

Mark Tami: rose-

Jim Fitzpatrick: rose-

Eleanor Laing: I will not give way to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) again, but I give way to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick).

Jim Fitzpatrick: Does the hon. Lady support-I fully presume that she does-the building of the big society, as outlined by her right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench? Is not the Select Committee's suggestion that the boundary commissions should have this arrangement for people to make representations an acknowledgement that the elimination of public inquiries is creating a vacuum and depriving citizens of the opportunity to make such representations, and therefore totally contradicts the big society in preventing expressions of disappointment or concern about the proposals from being allowed to take place?

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, very clever in the way that he puts his point, but this has nothing to do with the big society. I take his point that the boundary commissions must be seen to be operating fairly, but I argue strongly that there is no need for them to take year after year, spending more and more taxpayers' money, listening to political parties making points that are cleverly disguised as being about ancient boundaries, communities and so on, when in fact they are about the perceived electoral advantage or disadvantage of each particular political party. Anyone involved in politics knows perfectly well that that happens. At a time when we should be spending money on the real big society issues of which the hon. Gentleman is only too well aware, we should not be spending enormous amounts of taxpayers' money on keeping the boundary commissions doing that year after year.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree with the hon. Lady's Aristotelian logic. There is no need for wide public inquiries or forced submissions if we are going to have a purely arithmetical decision on where the boundaries lie; in fact, there is no need for any submissions whatsoever. May I therefore urge her to table an amendment that would scrap any discussion or debate in this House and just move on to drawing the jigsaw that will be the United Kingdom's parliamentary boundaries? If one takes her logic to the extreme, there is no need for any discussion or debate whatsoever.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point with which I cannot disagree. It is the arithmetic that rules. Labour Members try to find arguments against that, but the fact is that if one believes in a modern democracy where every vote is of equal value and every Member of Parliament comes here with an equal weight of potential votes behind them, one cannot argue otherwise. I would go further and say that there should have been no exceptions in the Bill.

Russell Brown: This evening and on other occasions, Members of this House have put great emphasis on equal votes having equal value. If the coalition Government succeed in doing what they are attempting to do, the vote of every person who goes to the polling station will be equal when they enter, but a 48% turnout will give a different value to that vote than it would if the turnout were 70%. Equality is about more than just the number of bodies in a constituency-it is also about votes being cast, and that can cause a disproportionate level of representation.

Eleanor Laing: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is speaking from sincere and heartfelt beliefs, but that is totally illogical. If there are, say, 76,000 potential voters in a constituency and 40,000 of them decide not to vote, that is their democratic choice, just as it is the democratic choice of the other 37,000-I think I got the arithmetic wrong there-to cast their vote. People who decide not to vote are exercising their democratic judgment in the same way as people who decide to vote. There has been a lot of discussion about where the heart is, communities, boundaries, and so on-matters that appear to be anything other than purely arithmetical.

John Mann: Completing the circle of logic in the hon. Lady's argument, presumably she will want to table, or to have someone else table, an amendment that would prohibit people from registering in more than one place, because those voters, be they students or second-property owners, have the opportunity to choose where they would cast their vote. Therefore their vote is not as equal as anybody else's. Given her logic, she is presumably in favour of such an amendment and will be urging Government Front Benchers to bring it forward immediately.

Eleanor Laing: I see the hon. Gentleman's point. However, the logic and arithmetic of that is that it does of course happen, but it pretty well cancels itself out from one constituency to the next. People often, for various reasons and quite legitimately, register in more than one place, but the fact that it happens all over the country cancels it out.

Mark Durkan: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eleanor Laing: No, I cannot prolong this part of the debate. I am aware that there is very little time and there are a lot of matters to be discussed.
	All the other parts of this debate have been froth: the only thing that matters is that in a modern democracy every vote should have an equal value, and every Member of Parliament should come to this House with an equal number of constituents behind them.

Sadiq Khan: I rise to speak to amendment 15, on which we will wish to divide the House.
	It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). As charming as her speech was, I am reassured that we were in different Lobbies in the last Division, and I suspect that we will be again come 10 o'clock. She has sat through all five days of the Committee stage and all of today, and no doubt she will sit through tomorrow's debates on remaining stages.
	The hon. Lady should understand that many colleagues are frustrated that they have not had a chance to make certain substantive points, and they will be frustrated by the Bill when it leaves the House. That is a metaphor for what will happen when it abolishes the public inquiry. She and many colleagues are frustrated, and some Members shouted "Disgraceful" when the last Division result was announced. Citizens around the country will be shouting "Disgraceful" when the boundaries are changed without their having a chance to argue their case before the boundary commission. Their only option will be recourse to judicial review, which will make lawyers rich and citizens poorer.
	I am not usually one for hyperbole, but let us be absolutely clear that the Government's proposal to abolish public inquiries is driven by one overriding concern-the politically driven desire to rush the completion of the boundary review through by October 2013. That is against due process and natural justice, and it is partisan. I say to the hon. Lady that if there are concerns about public inquiries taking too long, the Government should speed up the process, not abolish them. There is obviously a tension between the speed of the boundary reviews, strict adherence to electoral equality and the strong tradition of consultation and public involvement in such reviews. This country is currently giving lectures to emerging democracies about the importance of voting and of involving communities in how boundaries are drawn up, but at the same time we are abolishing public inquiries.

John Mann: Is it not the case that where the traditional English counties, for example, are breached, such as by constituencies crossing from Nottinghamshire into Derbyshire, Yorkshire or Lincolnshire, people will want to have a far greater say than they have for many years in a county such as Nottinghamshire? Although the boundary reviews there have sometimes been contentious, they have been within clearly defined parameters, which have been publicly available and generally publicly acceptable.

Sadiq Khan: I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. I will come later to the evidence, which is something the Government seem scared of. It proves his point that at the time when the public inquiries are serving their greatest function, they are being abolished. One has to ask why.
	A balance needs to be struck between overlapping objectives, but in the Bill the Government have managed to get the weighting wrong in almost every regard. The limits on disparities between seats are too severe and inflexible, the time scale for the boundary review is far too tight, and the abolition of local inquiries in return for an extended window for written submissions is deplorable.
	As I have said, because of the programming of the Bill we have dealt inadequately with the speed of the boundary review and with the strictness of the adherence to electoral equality. The abolition of inquiries is entirely at odds with the concept of localism and open politics, which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) referred to a moment ago and which the Deputy Prime Minister, who has called himself the great reformer, has previously professed. In a speech five months ago, which I will quote because it is important that colleagues in the other place hear it, he said:
	"I have spent my whole political life fighting to open up politics. So let me make one thing very clear: this government is going to be unlike any other. This government is going to transform our politics so the state has far less control over you, and you have far more control over the state."
	How does the abolition of local public inquiries empower people?
	To suit their rushed agenda, the Government are simply withdrawing any meaningful element of public participation and consultation, thereby reducing the boundary review process to an opaque, bureaucratic and largely mathematical exercise. The loss of transparency and the ability to comment on and amend proposals will seriously damage the reputation of the boundary commissions. It will erode the high level of trust in their impartiality that they rely on for their reports to be accepted, and the quality of their proposals will be compromised.
	Any significant boundary change is likely to cause some level of discontent and controversy, but that will be magnified to previously unknown levels of disquiet if the rigid new rules in the Bill are adopted and 50 seats are abolished. In a written submission to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the secretaries of the four boundary commissions were clear:
	"The changes to the total number of constituencies, and the tighter limits on the number of electors in each constituency, will result in a complete redrawing of constituency boundaries."
	They continued:
	"The electoral parity target may require the Commissions to work with electorate data below ward level in many cases"
	and
	"will result in many constituencies crossing local authority boundaries...the application of the electoral parity target is likely to result in many communities feeling that they are being divided between constituencies."
	If there is no procedural outlet for that discontent, the boundary commissions and the entire review process will be rapidly discredited.

Nick Smith: As the Member for Blaenau Gwent, I have a coterminous borough. If I want to get things done, I go to one chief executive and one leader. I talk to the local police inspector or the person who manages the health board locally. According to the Electoral Reform Society, if the proposed change is pushed through, I will have to work with three or four different borough councils, which will make it much harder to be effective as a local politician and to get things done. It will be much more complicated to work on behalf of my constituents, and I will be much less likely to be able to stand up for them, because I will have to deal with numerous officials in all sorts of different places. Surely that is bad for democracy.

Sadiq Khan: That highlights some of the nonsense reasons given by the coalition Government for the Bill. We are told that the Bill will make MPs more effective. Clearly, it will not. We are told that the boundary changes will make things cheaper for MPs. Clearly, they will not. What is clear is that it is not only my hon. Friend who will become a number, but the citizens in his area. That is all for the partisan reasons that I have set out.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Pursuant to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), I should add that, under the ERS proposals, the seat of Ogmore will disappear, and it is no coincidence that the largest majority in absolute terms for any party in Wales is in Ogmore. The seat will disappear and be subsumed into five neighbouring constituencies, all of which will be accountable to two chief executives, two cabinet systems, two sets of social services and two sets of everything, including different police authorities. In terms of simplifying an MP's accountability to his constituents, and of constituents being able to demand good services in one area, the Government are completely shooting themselves in the foot.

Sadiq Khan: I thank my hon. Friend.  [ Interruption. ] I hear the chuntering from those on the coalition Government's Front Benches-it is funny how soon some people become arrogant. The Government should test my hon. Friend's proposition. It would be easy: they could have a public inquiry to test whether my hon. Friend is on a frolic of his own or whether his constituents share his concerns about what the changes will bring. Why are the Government running away from local public inquiries?

Eleanor Laing: I am very concerned about the points made by the hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) and for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). Does the shadow Minister agree that they cannot possibly be arguing that they are so inefficient and ineffective as Members of Parliament that they cannot cope with more than one local authority? I am sure they are not. For goodness' sake, we all have to cope with different layers of local government. The hon. Member for Ogmore is wrong to say that he is any way accountable to local authority chief executives-that is simply nonsense. Such arguments have nothing whatever to do with this debate and do not hold water.

Sadiq Khan: With respect, may I tell the hon. Lady why she is wrong? My hon. Friends' constituents will have their lives changed because they will have to deal with different people as a result of the boundary changes. Those changes will be made not to make things more efficient, or to save money, but because the system has, for partisan reasons, been based just on numbers. An MP's ability to do his or her constituency a service will be affected. More importantly, however, a constituent's ability to contact the person he or she needs to contact to improve things will also be affected.

David Heath: I find it extraordinary that we have these complaints from Members representing small constituencies. They say that it is quite impossible to do something that is normal for half the House. I have three local authorities in my constituency. That is normal on our side of the Bristol channel, but it is apparently impossible on the Welsh side.

Sadiq Khan: If the Minister is so confident in his arguments, why does he not allow the public to make objections and to have a local public inquiry, rather than a bureaucrat in a quango taking only written submissions before reaching a view? The Minister has to answer that question.
	Another possible outcome of the proposed consultation is legal challenge by political parties, or local cross-party or apolitical campaign groups, such as Keep Cornwall Whole. Boundary commission decisions could be subject to judicial review. It is worth noting that only one judicial review resulted from the previous boundary review, but in evidence the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Professor Ron Johnston, who is an expert on such matters, said:
	"I can well see people using [judicial review] as a [means to] address the issues that they think they are not able to address because they are not having public inquiries."
	Excluding those cases when the only change was the name of the constituency, in the fifth periodic review of boundaries 27% of English constituencies were altered by one degree or another following a public inquiry into commission recommendations. In many cases, those inquiries looked at the local ties of a particular village or town. Most of the participants were concerned about the integrity of their local constituency.

Alan Beith: What makes the right hon. Gentleman's argument so unpersuasive to me is that when the people of Northumberland voted in a referendum not to replace their district councils with a single unitary authority, the Labour Government ignored the referendum, which they had organised.

Sadiq Khan: I am not sure what point the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make. We are talking about the abolition of local inquiries. In fact, his is an argument for more scrutiny and checks and balances at local level, with people giving evidence, rather than relying on written evidence in 12 weeks. If he feels that strongly, he should be embarrassed at how he will vote in an hour and a half.
	It is noteworthy that Cornwall MPs tonight found their consciences when self-interest was involved, but for five days in Committee they were absent from the Division Lobby. It is also noteworthy that three Tory MPs were willing to vote in their own interests. The Opposition have been consistent throughout in saying that the Bill is wrong. It is wrong on the principle of losing public inquiries, but it is also wrong because as the Cornwall Members pointed out-there is compelling evidence-the remote communities in Cornwall previously managed to convince the commission to amend its proposals. Many of us believe that the attention given to such local issues is the strength of the current system. Here is the key point: in every single case in which the commission proposed an increase or decrease in the number of constituencies in an area, its initial proposals were amended following a public inquiry.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest mentioned citizens and asked why MPs cannot do their jobs. However, this is not about our jobs becoming more complicated, but about citizens and constituents having a right to have their views heard in a public inquiry. In many cases, including Derbyshire, Merseyside and north-west London, substantial changes were made to initial proposals, as in the Deputy Prime Minister's city of Sheffield. His predecessor appeared at the inquiry and successfully argued for changes to the provisional recommendations. Many times, the commission commented in its report that the assistant commissioner's recommendations improved as a consequence of the public inquiry.

David Hamilton: May I reinforce my right hon. Friend's point? There was a public inquiry in Midlothian before the 2005 election. The commission recommended that the borders be brought into Midlothian and that we take Peebles and Galashiels into my constituency, but after public scrutiny the commission recommended that that would be inappropriate. No city of Edinburgh representative has yet complained because they represent 75,000 people and I represent 60,000 or so. Nobody questions that, because they recognise that the geographical layout of Midlothian is different to that of the city.

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and colleagues in the other place with read it with interest.
	In Derbyshire and Derby, the commission made provisional recommendations for the creation of a new seat, but they were rejected in favour of another that the assistant commissioner believed better reflected community ties. The amended proposals moved fewer electors and reduced the disparity. In Devon, Plymouth and Torbay, the commission proposed a division of the city of Exeter that was deeply unpopular with residents. The assistant commissioner believed that the counter-proposal better reflected local ties and reduced the electoral disparity.
	In Merseyside, the commission proposed a seat containing parts of both sides of the Mersey that was opposed by almost all those with an interest, and the assistant commissioner recommended a counter-proposal that almost wholly redrew most of the constituency. The Boundary Commission for Scotland proposed a Scottish parliamentary seat crossing the River Clyde estuary that was widely opposed and rejected by the assistant commissioner in favour of a scheme of minimum change. I have many examples of where proposals have been made, local residents have looked at the proposals, there has been a public inquiry, and an assistant commissioner has heard the evidence and changed their mind.

Gavin Williamson: Of all the changes made by the assistant commissioners, how many were instigated by proposals put forward by political parties?

Sadiq Khan: I was coming to that. I am not embarrassed to say that political parties have a huge role to play in a democracy. We are going around the world, not only lecturing, but helping emerging democracies. They have a lot to learn from us, so hon. Members should be careful of what they throw away in the interests of victories at future general elections.

George Howarth: My right hon. Friend prayed in aid Merseyside, but he should not take that argument too far, because Wirral now has a lot of undersized constituencies, while Knowsley, which I represent, has a very large one. It does not always work out perfectly.

Sadiq Khan: My right hon. Friend makes my point for me. There will be many people who are unhappy with how boundaries are drawn up-there always have been, and there always will be-but having a fair process at least makes people believe that they are involved in how boundaries are redrawn. If he is this disgruntled with the old system, let us imagine how he will feel if the only chance to object is by a written submission in a 12-week window that he might not have heard about.

George Howarth: My right hon. Friend needs to realise the fact that, because Wirral ended up with undersized constituencies, one constituency in Knowsley disappeared altogether. It was not done as a nice statistical exercise. It was basically done on the prejudices of the people of Wirral, who did not want to be seen to cross the river and be considered as part of Liverpool.

Sadiq Khan: As somebody who does not get the chance to go to Anfield as much as he would like, I take my right hon. Friend's point. I am happy for him to invite me up and show me the consequences of the changes made.
	The Bill's new inflexible rules and proposals for an arbitrary reduction in the number of constituencies will mean that the situations I have illustrated will occur in many more areas. At exactly the point when public inquiries will be at their most valuable, the Government are proposing to abolish them. Even those who hold reservations about the workings of public inquiries concede that now is not the time to end their use-quite the opposite in fact. Professor Ron Johnston told the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee:
	"where public inquiries had a big impact from what the Commission initially proposed to the final solution was where either a seat was being added to a county or being taken away and then everything was up for grabs and, not surprisingly, there was much more fighting over it".
	He continued:
	"that is an argument for having public inquiries this time because you are drawing a totally new map with new constituencies and nearly everything will be different...This time you are going to have much more where the local people are going to be concerned because suddenly the pattern of representation is going to be very different from what they have been used to for a long time."
	Importantly, Professor Johnston's view was echoed by Robin Gray, the former chair of the Boundary Commission for England, who told the Select Committee:
	"Particularly with this first round I can see there is a real need for public inquiries particularly to enable those who are interested, political parties and others, to actually argue this through because there are going to be big changes".
	He made another important point. He noted that the main responses under the new system will come in shortly before the end of the 12-week deadline, which means that participants will not necessarily know the counter-proposals made. The main benefit of inquiries is that all those with an objection feel that they have had an opportunity to be heard, and can understand the arguments against them and why they might be unsuccessful.

David Winnick: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about this travesty of democracy. Can one imagine what the Minister responding to this debate would have said about the proposal were he in opposition? He would have been the most vehement opponent of this denial of democracy. He should be thoroughly ashamed that he is willing to justify what is before us.

Sadiq Khan: Given parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, one has to ask what sort of shabby deal was made in those five days when this Government were being formed. It is clear from the history of our country and the way in which reforms have been made that, for big constitutional change, parties have either a mandate from their manifestos or try to reach a consensus across the Chamber or between the two Houses. No such attempt has been made in this case. The Government are rushing through some of the biggest changes in my political lifetime for the sake of expediency. My hon. Friend was very tempered in his comments.

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I point out to my right hon. Friend the inconsistency in principles at work here? In Wales, we are currently redrawing the local authority boundaries. We are able to make submissions and have hearings. Some people are happy and some are not, but at least they feel that they have had the opportunity to be heard. Many Lib Dem and Conservative local associations have made submissions to that process, and that principle has been accepted by everybody, because they have had that opportunity. What is being proposed is the electoral equivalent of a poll tax, and it is going to bite some people on the bum.

Sadiq Khan: One of the reasons why we have a Public Gallery and open democracy is that people can see democracy at work, even though they may not like what we say or how we vote. One of the reasons why we have open trials is to have open justice, so that people can see what happens in a trial. Not only does due process lead to better results; it also leads to people feeling that they get a fair hearing. In just five months, these guys on the Government Benches have been willing to bulldoze through some of the biggest changes in our lifetimes for the sake of stitching up the next general election.

Henry Smith: We have heard terms such as "denial of democracy" and "inconsistency" in recent interventions, but in a democracy should not everyone ultimately have an equal vote, which should not be decided by special interest groups or the intervention of political parties?

Sadiq Khan: The way it works in a democracy is that candidates stand on a manifesto and people vote for that manifesto, so that those representatives have a mandate. What is not democratic is for two parties to come up with a deal behind closed doors over five days, with no mandate from the British public, and after the election to change their views from what they had wanted to do before the election. Neither of the two parties in government talked about getting rid of public inquiries or about 300 seats, so the hon. Gentleman should ask himself whether he is proud to vote as he will in an hour and a half, to abolish public inquiries.
	For the avoidance of doubt, and to answer the important point raised by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), I do not disparage the active part that political parties play in the inquiry process. It is entirely natural that they are involved and that inquiries are more effective as a result. Indeed, that is what we encourage in emerging democracies.

Gavin Williamson: I actually asked the right hon. Gentleman how many of the changes in question had been the result of proposals put forward by a political party. I wonder whether he has an answer to that.

Sadiq Khan: I will go one better. In a few moments, I will cite for the hon. Gentleman not what I think, but what assistant commissioner Nicholas Elliot QC concluded after he had heard evidence from political parties.
	In the fifth review, both Labour and the Conservatives presented carefully researched and reasoned cases to the boundary commissions. That enabled proper arguments and options to be presented to the assistant commissioners. That was hardly illicit manipulation of the process; rather, it was open and transparent, and there was an inquiry. I ask the question: how open and transparent will the process be if people only get to write in and do not have an inquiry, where the public can see what representations are made? It is far better for political parties to get involved than just to have a rigid mathematical formula to decide how seats are drawn up.

Ian Lucas: It is important to highlight the fact that oral representations in a public inquiry will be taken away. Like me, my right hon. Friend is a solicitor. Do oral hearings not very often illuminate far more than written representations ever would, so that all parties, including the person who holds the inquiry, learn much more through that process?

Sadiq Khan: I advise my hon. Friend to be very careful with this coalition Government. In five months, they have got rid of the local public inquiry for the sake of expediency. God knows, next year they may get rid of the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and just rely on written representations. They may think, "This democracy malarkey is just too expensive. Let's just have written submissions and then have a vote in our constituencies rather than turning up and having a debate and arguing the pros and cons of an issue." I am astonished that hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches, who should know better, are taking through this shabby piece of legislation.
	Another criticism, which came from the hon. Member for Epping Forest, is that the local inquiry takes too long. The final and most lengthy inquiry, the fifth review, was in Greater Manchester and took more than two weeks. The assistant commissioner, Nicholas Elliot QC, made the following observation:
	"The advantage, sitting as an Assistant Boundary Commissioner, is that one gets from the two major political parties that they equally look at the overall picture in somewhere like Greater Manchester where it has to be done, whereas others examine it from their own perspective. The difficulty of the Assistant Commissioner is that you do have to look at the overall picture, and it is only those two major political parties who do provide very, very great assistance in trying to come to what may be the best or worst answer."

John Mann: It is good to use Manchester as an example when one talks about public inquiries. South Manchester has the highest concentration of university students in western Europe. Is not one of the anomalies that boundary commission inquiries might need to take evidence on the fact that university students will be able to register in two locations? Therefore, there will not be equal-sized constituencies. What we will have are university constituencies with a significant number of dual registrations. There could be as many as 15,000 people who are dual-registered and choose to vote in their previous constituency. The concept of equal votes in equal constituencies is thrown out of the water. Is that not the sort of thing that the Boundary Commission, even with this rotten legislation, would want to have a look at?

Sadiq Khan: rose-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. As the right hon. Gentleman rises to answer that intervention, may I remind him that he is supposed to be addressing his remarks to the Chair, and not to have his back to the Chair?

Sadiq Khan: It is with pleasure that I address the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I tell my hon. Friend that one of the important points that comes out in an oral inquiry is the one that can be teased out. The ability for the assistant commissioner to tease out and uncover points is hindered by written submissions. My hon. Friend raises a serious point.
	The tradition of boundary reviews is that they tend to be politically uncontentious. All those with an interest-political parties, local authorities, community organisations and individuals-have the opportunity to participate. The commissioners adopt the recommendations of assistant commissioners only because they believe them to be improvements on the proposals. Such recommendations come not from the political parties, but from the assistant commissioner after he or she has heard evidence from the community. Political parties are part of that community-I am proud to be part of that community- and the same judgments are unlikely to be reached based solely on a written consultation. The inquiry allows all those with an interest to comment not only on the commissioner's proposals but on those of others, so that all counter-proposals are tested in the same way. Such transparency and engagement is what gives legitimacy to the boundary review process. This Bill, with clause 15 left unchanged, would remove the opportunity for the public to have a meaningful say over the reform process and would replace a transparent system with an opaque one.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My right hon. Friend will know individuals who never put pen to paper and who do not have the capacity to articulate their views in written form, but who can stand up and speak eloquently for their communities at a public meeting and turn an argument on a dime. Who are we, as parliamentarians, to deny such people ever again the opportunity to have their say? Are the Government arguing, rather, that those people should go to the offices of their MPs or councillors and sit with them while they write out their complaints?

Sadiq Khan: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a good point. Another, linked, point is that assistant commissioners often visit areas under consideration, once they have been pointed out by members of the public or by MPs. Evidence from such senior people is invaluable when recommendations are being made.
	It is in the context of the biggest shake-up of constituency boundaries in modern times that the Government are abolishing public inquiries. The next review will be critical for other reasons as well. Concerns are already being expressed about the legitimacy of the next election.

Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend accept that giving primacy to numbers as opposed to community and geography, combined with not having a transparent appeals system, could result in boundaries drawn purely on the basis of political gerrymandering, in the knowledge that those adjudicating on those decisions in private will not be required to take account of geography, community, culture or history and will therefore accept what could simply be bizarre drawings for the party political advantage of the Government?

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend's point would have less force if the coalition Government were taking time to ensure that the 3.5 million electors who are not on the register were put on to it, if they were to wait and see what happens as a result of next year's housing benefit changes, and if they were to wait for the results of next year's census. They are rushing this Bill through, however, and my hon. Friend's point has some force.
	The Bill will mean that the next election could be held under a different voting system and with 600 constituencies instead of the present 650, alongside a referendum with differential turnouts. Questions are already being asked about the legitimacy of the next general election. Why add to that by taking away due process and natural justice? By taking away the opportunity to hold a public inquiry, the coalition Government are eroding the legitimacy of a system for redrawing boundaries that is the envy of the democratic world.

David Hamilton: Surely it cannot be right that in Scotland, at the end of the 10-year period between 2005 and 2015, there will be 25 fewer MPs. That means that 31% of the representatives of Scotland will be wiped out in that short period of time. What does that say about democracy?

Sadiq Khan: This is what we call the respect agenda. I hope that when those in Scotland have seen the Bill rushed through, the way in which the debate has been stopped-the hon. Member for Epping Forest mentioned "truncated" contributions-and the number of MPs who have not been allowed to make a contribution, they will form their own judgment.
	We do not want to stop being the envy of the democratic world, and I commend my amendment to the House. I ask those colleagues who are watching the debate in their rooms to do the right thing and support amendment 15.

Mark Durkan: I rise to speak to amendments 194 and 195. Before I address them specifically, however, I shall comment on one of the amendments tabled by members of the Select Committee, with which I have a fair degree of sympathy. I must express my slight reservation, however, about the wording of proposed new subsection A2(a) in amendment 205. I am worried that, by asking a boundary commission to publish the criteria it would use in the splitting of wards, we could end up inviting the commission to split wards more than we want. The Bill proposes that wards should not be split, and I think that most Members agree that local government boundaries should not be split. I am worried that that proposal could result in more wards being split than people would want. I would still support that amendment on a vote, however.
	Amendment 195 deals with the Government resisting all attempts to keep local inquiries as a general option. Under my proposal, at least Northern Ireland would be allowed the option of holding a general regional inquiry in relation to all the seats in Northern Ireland. This proposal is a fall-back measure.
	I want to make it clear that I absolutely support the amendments that would preserve the opportunity of holding local inquiries throughout the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) made a powerful speech in support of preserving inquiries and their important role. I know that other colleagues will propose other amendments to preserve inquiries.
	I thought that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) was quite disparaging about the role of inquiries, submissions and contributions to inquiries. First, where political parties make shallow, self-serving submissions about boundaries and where specious and spurious claims of local identity and local interests are made, there is no better way of exposing them than local inquiries. By their very nature, local inquiries expose, counter and introduce other realities.
	The hon. Lady's speech was about the rule of arithmetic, and I agree that this is what the Bill is about-the tyranny of arithmetic for boundaries in the future. She says that it does not matter. For her, traditions do not matter; local conditions do not matter; identity does not matter; community does not matter-it is all going to be driven by a numerical imperative that says "one size fits all" and nothing else can be considered. An official of the European Commission would be proud of that mindset. It is exactly the mindset that the hon. Lady usually criticises in the European Commission. As well as backing the "IPSA-fication" of boundaries in the future, she is now backing a European Commission standard that says, "No, we just deal in numerical arithmetic; we see only one size fitting all; we make no concession to local realities or local conditions."

Eleanor Laing: I rise to defend myself, because that is not at all what I said. On the contrary, communities and local traditions are very important. It is important to have a parish council representing a village and to have Cornishmen feeling Cornish and caring about Cornwall-nobody is changing Cornwall. It is very important to respect local history and the feelings of local communities. That is not reflected in the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies. There are many other ways in which those traditions and communities are respected, observed and upheld. It is not in the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Interventions should be short, not a second speech.

Mark Durkan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take no responsibility for the possibility that the boundaries of interventions were exceeded there.
	I would take the hon. Lady's point if she had said that in her speech, but that was not the attitude she conveyed. Then, it was the numerical imperative that was going to achieve an equality that she believed overrode every other possible consideration, including those that she has just outlined. Boundary commissions have been able to ensure that these sorts of local considerations are brought to bear on the construct of parliamentary constituencies. In future, after this Bill, however, that is going to be hard.
	I do not accept that we should lose the ability to have local inquiries in general as part of electoral reform, but my fall-back amendments are designed to protect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, where, as I said when speaking to earlier amendments, it needs to be borne in mind that the parliamentary constituencies are, by statute, also the constituencies for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Many of the issues that will come up as matters of local contention and perhaps even party political controversy will pertain as much to the Assembly constituencies as to other constituencies. Of course, the Northern Ireland Assembly is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is meant to be about giving equal weight to votes, including those of minorities in particular Northern Ireland constituencies. That is part of the agreement. We want to ensure that, rather than decisions in Northern Ireland being driven by robotic computer-generated arithmetic suggesting boundaries that will secure the numbers that fit, a local regional inquiry can take account of the different interests-not just party interests, but civic and local community interests.

Angus MacNeil: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting-and all of us in the islands must bear this in mind-that there will be a particularly destabilising effect on Northern Irish society? We know what a destabilising effect on Northern Irish society might mean. Is that the main cause of his concern?

Mark Durkan: I do not want to dwell on this, because I spoke about it in the context of an earlier amendment, but we should bear in mind that the boundaries will be revised in every single Parliament as a result of the Bill. Given the way in which the seats will be distributed in the various parts of the United Kingdom, the chances are that the number of seats in Northern Ireland will fall following one boundary review, rise following the next, and then fall again.
	The unsettling nature of the reviews will affect Assembly and parliamentary constituencies. A computer will say, "This is what we have to do", and it is possible that constituencies will receive the word that the computer says that there must be a reduction from 15 to 14 following the next boundary review. That will be hugely destabilising, and people will feel frustrated when they are told, "Sorry, this pays no regard to the Northern Ireland Assembly." Another of my amendments, in a subsequent group, would enable the Speaker of the Assembly to be notified formally of all the workings of the boundary commissions. That would make at least some acknowledgement of the impact on the Assembly, which is completely absent from the Bill.
	I believe that if the Government are refusing to allow local inquiries elsewhere-and they should not do that-they should at least allow, as a fall-back, a general inquiry in Northern Ireland that will take account of its particular circumstances. I will support any and all amendments that defend local inquiries.
	I ask Members to bear my amendment in mind; I ask the Government to continue to acknowledge that there is a deficit in the consideration that they have shown to Northern Ireland in the Bill, and to be ready to make up for that deficit.

George Howarth: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who always speaks with a deep understanding of Northern Ireland, with a great passion for Northern Ireland, and, of course, with eloquence.
	I was elected in a by-election in 1986 to represent a constituency that was then known as Knowsley, North. I represented Knowsley, North in the House until 1997. Following earlier boundary changes-a public inquiry had been held before the boundaries were finally fixed-I ended up representing a constituency known as Knowsley, North and Sefton, East. I represented Knowsley, North and Sefton, East for 13 years. In the meantime, the boundary commissioner came along again, and I now represent a constituency known as Knowsley. I therefore speak as one who has experienced dramatic boundary changes in my constituency on two occasions.
	I think it instructive to examine what happened on both those occasions. On the first occasion, when the boundary commission proposed that the Knowsley, North constituency should be coupled with Sefton, East, a public inquiry was held. Different views were expressed on either side of the boundary about what was and what was not appropriate. People had their say. I attended the inquiry on more than one occasion, and heard the debates about what links existed between the two constituencies.
	Two facts emerged that tipped the balance. The first was that a large number of people living in the Sefton, East part of what subsequently became the Knowsley, North and Sefton, East constituency worked in Knowsley, which was an industrial area. The second was that many people travelled between the two constituencies for leisure purposes.
	The leisure centre in Kirkby, which was in the old Knowsley, North constituency, was heavily used by people from Maghull, Aintree and Melling, so a link was established, but it would never have been established-nobody would have even checked the statistics on this-unless there had been a public inquiry. In the end, the original Boundary Commission proposals stood and the new constituency was formed; it became a parliamentary seat at the 1997 general election.
	My constituency's second boundary change took place before the last general election. I made some comments about the Wirral earlier and, on reflection, perhaps I overstated the case. I think I said that we ended up with the boundaries we have got because of prejudices on the part of the people in the Wirral. Prejudice is probably too strong a word, so let me retract it. However, what did clearly emerge was that because of the arguments put by the people of the Wirral, we have undersized constituencies in that part of the county of Merseyside than on my side of the river in Knowsley.
	It is rather like a county. I will come on to counties shortly, because I realise it might sound as if I am arguing against myself. Let us consider constituencies within a county with reference to the idea of a balloon. If we squeeze some air out of one part of it-air being the electors-it will emerge somewhere else, and it emerged in Knowsley. I now represent a constituency of just under 80,000 people, whereas some Members of Parliament in the Wirral represent under 60,000. The Government's argument would be that if we equalise that, it would not matter, but I honestly believe that 80,000 electors is too many for an MP to be able to represent adequately. It is not that, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said, I am too lazy or incompetent to do that; it is just really difficult.
	I now want to talk about some of the practical implications of the two changes I have experienced. The first of them is to do with representing a constituency that is partly in two different boroughs. The Knowsley, North and Sefton, East constituency was slightly less than half in Sefton with the rest in Knowsley. Many Members on the Government Benches represent areas where that is already the case, but most of them are probably not in metropolitan districts. For Members with constituencies that are in a metropolitan district rather than a shire county, the powers of local authorities, primary care trusts and so forth are much more important and much more focused. For 13 years, I represented a constituency that had two primary care trusts, two hospital trusts, two local authorities and two different area police command divisions, and dealing with that is very difficult. Apart from the practicalities of needing to keep lists of everybody we have to deal with, we deal with areas that have different kinds of crime, different kinds of health problems and different kinds of relationships with their local authorities. That does make a difference. My hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) made that point quite well, and I support it.
	Now if, as seems perfectly possible under the provisions in this part of the Bill, we start to say that county boundaries can also be crossed, the problem could be compounded even further. At some points, my constituency is right on the edge of West Lancashire-indeed, it is on the edge of a lot of other constituencies. It is perfectly possible that if this Bill goes ahead as it is, my constituency could end up containing part of Lancashire, as could the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts). That would involve a whole different set of relationships, and my hon. Friend and I could find ourselves motoring up and down to Preston on an almost daily basis in the recesses as we try to represent another county, as well as the metropolitan county in which we are located.

Dave Watts: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the last time the number-crunching took place the Boundary Commission recommended that one constituency should be half on one side of the river and half on the other. How does he feel he could represent a constituency that had the River Mersey running between its two halves?

George Howarth: I do not think that that would be impossible. After all, two tunnels and a bridge run between the two areas, and there is a proposal for a further bridge. I do not think it would be beyond the wit of man, or even my hon. Friend and I, to commute either under a tunnel or over a bridge. The point is that, as I said a little earlier-I do not know whether he was in his place at the time-the consequence of the arrangements is that we have undersized constituencies in the Wirral and oversized constituencies in some parts on the other side of the river.

Sadiq Khan: Is the point not that under the Bill, as drafted-I refer to clauses 11(2) and 11(5)-numbers trump everything? All the points made by my right hon. Friend and by other hon. Friends do not matter a jot, because numbers trump everything.

George Howarth: Yes, and my right hon. Friend may not have realised it, but I am actually supporting his argument. The point I am making is that a public inquiry is able to examine any problems that are thrown up as a result of that, and that is why I am supporting his amendment 15, which would create the circumstances in which public inquiries could still be held.

Alan Whitehead: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend, in reflecting on the problems of the Mersey, might also consider the issues of the Solent and the proposition that 40,000 people will be taken away from the Isle of Wight and distributed to a constituency somewhere in Hampshire. They know not where, they would have no say in where that might be and, as far as I can see, the Boundary Commission may not even be able to determine whether a ferry actually connects them with where they might go. Does he think that that is a reasonable way to proceed on a boundary change-with no public inquiry or no input into what might happen in future?

George Howarth: It is very tempting to be taken down the road that my hon. Friend seeks to lead me, but having spent a lifetime struggling with the problems of the Mersey I am hardly likely to spend what remains of my life struggling with the problems of the Solent. He makes his point effectively.
	My key point is that there are practical implications to such changes. They need to be examined and the best way to do that is in a public inquiry. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), for whom I have some affection-she referred to Socrates, so perhaps at this point I should say that it is entirely Platonic-outlined the argument that this issue is not important and that a lot of these inquiries were vexatious and just held for the benefit of political parties. I do not think that is true. My experience of having sat through two public inquiries into major constituency boundary changes is that people from the community-people from community groups or individuals-come along, express their opinion and either it is taken into account or it is not. If there is a valid objection, it will often be taken into account. If it is not, it will not. The point is that they are the most important people in that inquiry. It is important to them with whom they are linked in a parliamentary constituency.
	I come back to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) was making: of course there needs to be fairness on the size of constituencies, but if we reach the point where they are purely mathematical entities and if everybody changes-if it is like a roundabout, where someone jumps on at one point and jumps off at the next election, finding themselves representing an entirely different constituency-the relationship between the constituency, the Member of Parliament and the people whom that Member of Parliament represents will change dramatically. Not only will those constituencies be a mathematical entity, but Members of this House will start to view them in that light. That will dramatically change the relationship with our constituents.

John Mann: rose-

Nia Griffith: rose-

George Howarth: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). Then I really do want to finish this speech.

John Mann: I thank my right hon. Friend for generously giving way, and he is making an excellent point. Will the problem not be further and particularly compounded by the fact that with individual registration proposed for 2014-15, there will be a huge ripple effect throughout the country-particularly in areas where there are university residences with large concentrations of students who are automatically registered by the university authorities? If students are not automatically registered, there will be a huge ripple effect throughout the country that will alter the boundaries significantly in every constituency?

George Howarth: My hon. Friend is quite right. The ripple effect in a metropolitan county such as Merseyside, which I described earlier, would go right through the country.

Nia Griffith: I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Does he not agree that the key point about public inquiries is that rule by consent is the basis of democracy? If people, because of the abolition of public inquiries, feel that they have no voice-if they feel that they have no chance to make their opinions heard, whether or not their opinion is the one that is found in favour of-that will do absolutely nothing to get rid of the cynicism about democracy and nothing to help people to take part. That will bring the coalition Government into absolute disrepute.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend put that argument very well indeed and I would struggle to find the words to match what she has just said.
	Let me conclude. I genuinely believe that what is proposed by taking away public inquiries as part of the process is that the relationship between constituent, Member of Parliament and constituency, which is already fractured, will split completely. I think we will end up in a situation where constituencies are simply ships of convenience. I hope that that day never comes and that the Government will at some point wake up and realise that this is not the right way to do things.

Nigel Dodds: I want to speak in support of amendment 209, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), as well the consequential amendment 210. It would delete proposed new section 5(2) from clause 12 so that the status quo was maintained and a public inquiry could be held by a boundary commission. As that is the purpose of my amendment, I have no difficulty in lending my support and that of my hon. Friends to amendment 15, proposed by the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). As regards the other amendments in this group, I am happy to support amendment 194, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). As he said, it is a fall-back provision if the House decides to do away with the option of having local public inquiries in general. At the very least, I agree that there should be such a provision that would cover Northern Ireland as a region because of the particular circumstances that he so ably outlined.
	I want to make a few general comments very briefly, then a couple that relate specifically to Northern Ireland. First, we have had a very good debate. Everyone who has spoken in this and the previous one spoke against the Bill and its provisions. I have not heard many speeches in support of it, other than from those on the Government Front Bench.  [ Interruption. ] I am sorry: the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who has returned to her place, strongly opposed part 1 of the Bill on the alternative vote, so she is in the category of having opposed the Bill on some matters but, as she made clear, she would go much further than the Bill does on other matters. I got the clear impression that she would be happy to do away with constituencies altogether and have one great list system in which everyone voted in relation to the entire country. She might be happier with such a system, but we shall not rehearse that debate as we have already had exchanges on it.
	Given that no mandate has been sought by or given to either of the coalition parties on either the AV provisions or on reducing the number of seats from 650 to 600, given that there has been no Speaker's Conference and no pre-legislative consultation, and given that no cross-party consensus has been sought or given and that there has been no consultation with any of the devolved Administrations, it is all the more appalling and reprehensible that there should be no opportunity for people to give oral evidence to, or to query, the boundary commission proposals at a local public inquiry. The coalition Government talk about new politics, openness and transparency, but I think that these measures will be for ever cited as a damning indictment of their real approach to this issue.
	Given the scale and unprecedented nature of the changes to boundaries and constituencies and given that the measures are driven by the need to do this quickly for reasons of political expediency, it is absolutely essential that we should have public local inquiries. It is vital to ensure that people in local communities know what is going on and what is being proposed, that they are able to participate fully in the process and feel ownership of it, and that there is transparency and openness in the entire process. In my experience and that of the people I represent, the taking of such an approach has made a difference.
	As the hon. Member for Foyle will know, not long ago the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland proposed to reduce the number of seats in Belfast from four to three and there was an outcry. The hon. Member for Epping Forest said that there was never an enormous outcry about constituency boundary changes, but I can tell her that there was about the prospect of the Belfast boundaries being changed. Of course, she can imagine why that might be, given what it would mean with regard to who would be representing certain people in certain areas. More recently, when it was proposed that a particular community should be moved from the Lagan Valley constituency into the Belfast West constituency, that community spontaneously and of their own volition made strenuous objections to the proposal. They went to the public local inquiry, raised their concerns, were interrogated on them and ultimately made a difference to the outcome. The effect is all the greater because some Northern Ireland constituencies are not represented in this House as their elected Members deliberately abstain from and boycott the House by not taking their seats here, so these things matter to people in Northern Ireland. That is why we need public local inquiries to take account of such local issues.
	As has been mentioned, the proposed constituency changes will affect representation not only in this House but in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Some of the issues pertinent to the boundary changes are therefore relevant not only to the make-up of the House of Commons and how people are represented here, by a single elected Member, but to multi-Member constituencies in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not underestimate the fact that people in Northern Ireland have for many years put a great premium on stability and having a consensus moving forward.
	Now we risk-almost as an aside, almost as an incidental of the Bill being rushed through-upsetting a delicate political equilibrium, a point that was made by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), the former Secretary of State, in his contribution. We risk that equilibrium being thrown into turmoil. All sorts of unintended consequences could emerge from that, so I urge caution.
	At the very least, if the Government are not so minded and the House does not support my amendment or amendment 15 in the name of the right hon. Member for Tooting, the Government should allow Northern Ireland, through amendment 194, to have the opportunity of its own regional inquiry. I urge the House to think carefully before it does away with the right of local public inquiries to have the oral evidence presented, to allow people to participate and to have their concerns investigated in detail.

Angus MacNeil: It strikes me that there is cross-community agreement on local public inquiries as the Northern Ireland fall-back position. Does the right hon. Gentleman hope that if the Government do not listen here, they might listen in the other place?

Nigel Dodds: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Given the experience of recent days, and the Minister's references to the time that has been allowed for debate-a couple of hours this afternoon and this evening to debate these very important matters concerning the number of seats and the abolition of the age-old right to have local public inquiries-I am confident that the other place will examine these matters in great detail and will, I hope, bring common sense to bear.

Paul Murphy: My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Is he aware that, so far as I know, there is an anomaly that in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales the boundary commission inquiries for parliamentary constituencies are to be abolished, but remain for the two Assemblies and the Parliament?

Nigel Dodds: In Northern Ireland, the parliamentary constituency boundaries are the Northern Ireland Assembly boundaries. I know the position is different in Scotland and Wales. That is why, at least for Northern Ireland-and for all the reasons that I and others have outlined this evening, it should be the case for the whole country-I appeal to the Government to think very carefully about the implications for our country of the decision to push ahead with abolition.

Alan Whitehead: Almost all of us are aware of the purpose of the abolition of inquiries into boundary changes. It is about expediency, getting the process through as rapidly as possible, and air-brushing out a particularly important part of the process in order to do that.
	I do not accept the idea that because boundary commissions have not changed an enormous amount in the past, that is likely to be the case in future. Because of the wholesale changes that are being made in the rest of the Bill, boundary commission public local inquiries will probably be more important in future than was the case in the past.
	In the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, the most recent iteration of the rules for the redistribution of seats, we see, as other hon. Members have mentioned, a balancing arrangement between the idea of equality in representation, between various local considerations, and between representation and decision making. As a result of that relatively balanced mechanism, it is fair to say that the boundary commission process has worked pretty well, without enormous public outcry at its past decisions.
	Looking ahead, we find that the Government are removing not only most of the checks and balances that were in the boundary commission arrangement, but the very last check and balance whereby, after that whole process has taken place, the public have an opportunity to question, have their say and find out why those changes are taking place in the way that has been suggested. The idea that that should be replaced with a procedure that is simply not transparent is a complete rejection of all those previous checks and balances, and a rejection of the principles put forward-I am sorry if this sounds ad hominem-by a Minister, the Deputy Leader of the House, for whom I have a great deal of respect, but who would have made exactly the same arguments about public representation, the public's say and the due process of democracy until one day before the election.
	I do not know whether a particular event in Greece, and the electoral practices there, caused the hon. Gentleman to change his mind on the matter, but over the years a large number of Liberal Democrat constituency parties have been active participants in those processes, and he will have to go to them and say, "Actually, you can't do this anymore, because I've thrown this out of the window as part of a deal to get something else through." They will be aghast at what has happened to the principles that they previously put forward.

Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend know whether any party standing at the last general election had as a manifesto commitment the abolition of public inquiries by the boundary commission?

Alan Whitehead: As my hon. Friend will know, peruse though one might, it is not possible to find such a pledge. If any party had put such a pledge in its manifesto at the last election, that itself would have been the subject of an internal public inquiry, because of what it would have said about that party's commitment to the process of electoral change.
	On the differences that the boundary reviews will make, I refer to the Isle of Wight, which is close to my constituency but separated by a substantial body of water, the Solent. The proposal, which is likely to come to pass, is that 40,000 people will be taken out of that constituency and distributed somewhere else in Hampshire-they know not where.  [ Interruption. ] They will stay on the Isle of Wight, but for the purposes of political representation they will join another constituency.
	The boundary commission will have a certain say in the process, because it will have to decide which 40,000 people on the island go to various other parts for their representation. It may decide that they will go to Portsmouth, to Southampton or to the New Forest. Each area has a connecting ferry service to the island, but I am not sure whether the commission can even take into account whether the people and the ferry service should be connected, given the changes that will be made and the Government's conditions for the new arrangements.
	All that will be done on the basis of a boundary commission decision, no public inquiry, some representations and no explanation. That represents a serious and fundamental change to the representation of, admittedly, just one constituency, but the process will be repeated throughout the country in a substantial if not such an extreme way, and if that is not a negation of the public's right to understand what is happening to their own political processes, I do not what is or will be.
	We must vote for amendment 15, which would reintroduce the idea of a public inquiry within particular boundaries and for particular concerns to ensure that it was conducted seriously and not frivolously. The idea that the public should have their say in who they are represented by, how they are represented and where their representation takes place has been a fundamental part of our electoral system for many years, and to throw it out of the window for expediency is a move that will be regretted and a move that we should reject.

David Heath: Let me start by thanking the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) for speaking to the amendment on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on which she serves. It is a great pity that the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), is not also present in order to support its view.
	The hon. Lady said that nobody ever listens to a word she says. I have to say that that is not entirely the case, because I remember in Committee of the whole House she very eloquently put forward the views of the Select Committee that the Government should not be able unilaterally to change the views expressed by the boundary commissions before presenting them to Parliament. We listened to what she said on behalf of the Select Committee, and we have tabled amendments to put that into effect; they will be debated in due course.

Eleanor Laing: On behalf of the Select Committee, I thank the Minister and the Government for listening and acting accordingly.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. The Select Committee has done a very good job in raising some important issues.
	Amendment 205 would add a stage to the consultation process that the boundary commissions are required to carry out for the purposes of the review. Prior to making recommendations, the commissions would be required to publish online their proposed approach to the application of the rules and factors. A consultation period of eight weeks would follow, and the commissions would be required to take the results into account. We have set a deadline of October 2013 for the commissions to report to allow parties, administrators and electors to adjust to the new boundaries prior to the general election in 2015.
	An increase in consultation time of eight weeks could delay the reports, making it harder to prepare for the next general election. In effect, the time added to the process by the amendment would be much greater, as the commissions would have to publicise their proposed approach and assess the representations received before taking the many and complex individual decisions required to put together their recommendations. The Government believe that the right place to debate the approach that the boundary commissions must take is in Parliament. The importance of that is highlighted by the fact that the Bill had its Committee stage on the Floor of the House. The boundary commissions will carry out the review according to Parliament's wishes, as has always been the case.
	In any event, I do not consider that the commissions' general approach, divorced from the resulting recommendation for particular constituencies, is a subject on which wide consultation is appropriate. It is the effect of the recommendations on a person's local constituency or local area on which it is important for them to have a say, and the Bill increases the period for them to do so. Consultation on a general approach is likely to lead to many responses that are based not on genuine concern about the approach but on guesswork as to what the effect of that approach might be in a local area. But until the commission has taken all the many individual decisions necessary to formulate its recommendations, it will be impossible to predict the effect on a particular area.
	I hope that it will reassure hon. Members that during the previous review the Boundary Commission for England produced a booklet prior to the publication of recommendations which gave information about the review. There was also extensive use of the commissions' websites to inform interested parties about all aspects of the review. Amendment 206 proposes a new set of publicity and consultation rules under clause 10. I hope to reassure hon. Members who tabled the amendment that it is not necessary as it reflects the practice that the boundary commissions are likely to follow in any event. The boundary commissions made extensive use of the internet in publicising the last general review and, although it is for them to decide, I am confident they will do likewise this time. The information that they published at the time of their recommendations included the electorate figures mentioned in the amendment.
	I believe that it is important to allow the boundary commissions discretion to present their recommendations and relevant accompanying information as they think best, taking into account the particular circumstances with which they are dealing and the changing way in which people obtain information and communicate. On that basis, while I do not disagree with the principle underlying the amendment, I do not agree that it is desirable for the Bill to particularise the commissions' practice in legislation to the extent that the amendment proposes.
	The amendment would also expressly allow representations to be made by people within or outside the affected constituency. That is presently the case, and the Bill does not change that. New section 5(1)(b) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 follows the existing section 5(2) in that respect. The boundary commissions are likely to publish recommendations for a number of constituencies together as a scheme, and the proposals for one constituency will undoubtedly affect those of others. It is important that interested parties from both within a proposed constituency and from neighbouring constituencies may make representations to the commissions for alternative schemes that work within the rules, and the Bill does not prevent that from happening. While I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Epping Forest, it is not necessary for the wording that appears in the amendment to be in the Bill. On that basis, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
	I now turn to more general points about local inquiries. It was interesting to listen to the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) outline the Opposition's case. I am glad that in this evening's debate, we have not heard local inquiries described as appeals, because of course they are not. They are part of the process of information gathering, listening to the views of local people and weighing them up as part of the due process.
	The process suggested in the Bill maintains that principle. Indeed, it actually extends it. It is vital that the boundary commissions fully consult all interested parties on proposals for changes to constituency boundaries. We all accept that. Local people in particular must be able to have their say. However, the Government believe that it would be a mistake to imagine that local inquiries achieve that objective, and there is independent support for that view. The Bill abolishes them for three major reasons. First, we simply must speed up reviews.

Chris Bryant: Why?

David Heath: I am telling the hon. Gentleman why, if he will just listen.
	The boundaries in force in England for the first time at the general election in May were based on electoral register data that were 10 years out of date. I do not think that is acceptable, and nor should Opposition Members.

George Howarth: The Deputy Leader of the House makes a fair point that those registers were out of date. Does he believe it is of equal concern that 3.5 million people will not be registered by the time the new constituency boundaries are drawn up?

David Heath: Yes, it is very important that we get people registered, and it is an indictment of the previous Government's conduct that they totally failed to deal with the gap in registration. However, I have to say that it is not relevant to the issue before us at the moment.

Sadiq Khan: The Deputy Leader of the House will be aware that the average time taken for a review in the current system is six years. In his new system it will be three years. Bearing in mind that he has conceded that people will still be missed off the electoral register, is not the real reason for the rush that he wants the change before the next general election rather than the one after?

David Heath: It is hardly a secret that we want a general election based on fair constituencies, and I do not think that is an unreasonable aspiration.
	The second reason why we are abolishing the public inquiries is that they do not achieve their purpose. They do not provide the boundary commissions with a good indication of local opinion to aid them in the process of drawing up constituencies. [Hon. Members: "How do you know?"] I will tell Members how I know-academics have been clear on that point for a number of years. Professors Butler and McLean, in their evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 2006, argued that a faster approach could
	"simplify the system without leading to any significant decline in equity."
	Oral inquiries were described by Professor Ron Johnston and his colleagues, whom the right hon. Member for Tooting quoted several times, as
	"very largely an exercise in allowing the political parties to seek influence over the Commission's recommendations-in which their sole goal is to promote their own electoral interests."
	That is why the right hon. Gentleman and his friends like the system at the moment. It gives the power to the parties, not to the public.

Sadiq Khan: The Deputy Leader of the House makes an interesting point and quotes a generalised point that the professor made, but did not he and many other experts also make the specific point that bearing in mind the huge changes that are to be made, this is the one occasion if any when a public inquiry is essential?

David Heath: No, it is the one occasion when it is absolutely essential that we have the fullest possible consultation process, and that is why we are extending the consultation period for three months, allowing every single person to have their say, not just the political parties that want to turn up at public inquiries. I hope the right hon. Gentleman recognises that.

Julie Hilling: rose-

Ian Lucas: Will the Deputy Leader of the House give way?

David Heath: No, I have got to make progress.
	The third reason for abolishing inquiries is that they rarely lead to significant changes in recommendations. The statistics that are often prayed in aid of local inquiries usually group together many different constituencies and include changes solely to the names of constituencies, to inflate the figure of the proportion that lead to change. The truth, as Professor Johnston told the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, is:
	"Public inquiries often have no impact."
	The changes are frequently minor. For example, at the time of the fifth general review in England, only 2% of wards in counties where inquiries were held were moved between constituencies as a result.
	What the Bill does- [Interruption.] No, let us deal with what the Bill actually does. It improves the process of public consultation, so that the public will be better able to have their say on proposals. That is why we are extending the period for representations on proposals from one month to three. Where a boundary commission revises proposed recommendations, the period of consultation on the revised proposals will be the same.
	In making that decision, the Government have considered the approach taken in other nations. We looked at the example of Australia, which has a 28-day consultation period for proposed recommendations, followed by 14 days for comments. The Government propose a longer consultation period of three months.

Mark Durkan: The Deputy Leader has said that where a boundary commission reviews its recommendations, they will be subject to a further period of consultation, but a second revision will be final, and there will be no consultation. An appeal will involve people turning to the Secretary of State, who may, under the Bill, prepare an Order in Council with or without modification. The Secretary of State can therefore change things, but the public cannot appeal.

David Heath: I would answer the hon. Gentleman in two ways, and I know that he takes a serious interest in these matters. The second inquiry, as he puts it, does not happen now. Once a boundary commission makes its final conclusions, that is the end of the story-and there has to be an end to the process. In the Bill, we are establishing a longer and more thorough process of consultation, all of which will be in the open, rather than in secret, because it will all be published and available for people to see. That is a fairer way of doing things than having highly paid QCs representing two big parties simply making partisan points in front of an assistant commissioner.

Ian Lucas: If the Minister believes that abolishing public inquiries into boundary reforms is such a good idea, will he tell me whether he proposed them before the general election?

David Heath: We did not propose legislation on the Boundary Commission at that point, but we are doing so now, and those are the proposals before the hon. Gentleman. He must look at them and see whether they make sense. I believe that they do.
	During our discussions, we have had a flavour of some of the arguments that are put before commissioners in public inquiries. We have had people claiming that constituencies can never cross a river. We have had Members complaining that they cannot have a connection to more than one local authority in their constituency. Those are the sorts of spurious argument that a public inquiry throws out of court every time.

Sadiq Khan: The Deputy Leader of the House quoted Professor Johnston out of context and now has issues with lawyers earning lots of money in inquiries. Will he confirm that Professor Johnston said:
	"I can well see people using"
	judicial review
	"as a reason for addressing the issues that they think they are not able to address because they are not having public inquiries"?
	Does the Minister agree with Professor Johnston or does he not?

David Heath: If each of the boundary commissions does a thorough job, which I fully expect them to, and takes the proper matters into consideration, I do not expect an increase in judicial review. That is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman. He mentions the fact that he is a lawyer and that I do not like highly paid lawyers very much, but I am surprised that he decries the idea of submissions being made in writing rather than orally, because that is a well-known and fundamental principle in law.
	The improved process in the Bill will deliver faster reviews. Time-consuming public inquiries that do not bring new arguments to the table and which are dominated by parties attempting to advance their electoral interests are not beneficial in Northern Ireland or anywhere in the UK. I urge hon. Members not to press the amendments.

Eleanor Laing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving full consideration to amendments 205 and 206. I accept his assurances and beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 205.

Hon. Members: No.
	 Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 Question negatived.
	 Amendment proposed: 15, page 12, leave out lines 35 to 41 and insert-
	'(1A) A Boundary Commission may cause a local inquiry to be held for the purposes of a report under this Act where, on publication of a recommendation of a Boundary Commission for the alteration of any constituency, the Commission receives any representation objecting to the proposed recommendation from an interested authority or from a body of electors numbering one hundred or more.
	(1B) Where a local inquiry was held in respect of the constituencies before the publication of the notice mentioned in subsection (1) above, that subsection shall not apply if the Commission, after considering the matters discussed at the local inquiry, the nature of the representations received on the publication of the notice and any other relevant circumstances, is of an opinion that a further local inquiry would not be justified.
	(1C) In subsection (1A) above, "interested authority" and "elector" respectively mean, in relation to any recommendation, a local authority whose area is wholly or partly comprised in the constituencies affected by the recommendation, and a parliamentary elector for any of those constituencies.'.- (Sadiq Khan.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 336.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Proceedings interrupted (Programme order, this day).
	 Mr Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No.83E).

Clause 10
	 — 
	Reports of the Boundary Commissions

Amendments proposed: 20, page 8, line 5, leave out 'as follows' and insert 'as set out in subsections (2) to (7)'.
	Amendment 218, page 8, line 37, at end insert-
	'(5AA) Any such draft giving effect to recommendations contained in the report of a particular Boundary Commission may do so with modifications only if that Commission has requested the modifications and submitted to the Secretary of State a statement of the reasons for the modifications.'.
	Amendment 219, page 8, line 42, at end insert-
	'( ) In section 4(2) of the 1986 Act (Orders in Council), at the end there is inserted "submitted under section 3(5AA) above".'.
	 Question put (single Question on amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown), That amendments 20, 218 and 219 be made.- (Mr Heath.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Amendments 20, 218 and 219 agreed to.
	 Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Sadiq Khan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker-- [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I understand that the House is excited, but we must hear the point of order.

Sadiq Khan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have today debated the remaining stages of a Bill that were not discussed in Committee. The parts we were supposed to discuss today covered a reduction in the number of seats, a change in the way they are distributed, and abolition of local inquiries. We have also had two statements.
	We have had no debate on clause 12, which covers Boundary Commission processes and which was not discussed in Committee, and we had less than two hours' debate today. There were more than 12 speakers who were not called at the end of the debate. Clause 13 -- [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I understand his concern. He knows that the programme motion is a matter determined by, and in the hands of, the House; it is not a matter for the Chair. The Speaker is always keen to have the maximum debate on matters of concern. The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member, and he has made his point with great clarity. It is on the record, and it will be heard by those on the Treasury Bench: whether it is heeded by others remains to be seen.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Political and Constitutional Reform Committee

Ordered,
	That Nick Boles be discharged from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and Andrew Griffiths be added. -(Stephen Crabb.)

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Stephen Crabb.)

Mr Speaker: Before I call Thomas Docherty, may I make the ritual appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, because Members want to listen to Mr Thomas Docherty?

Thomas Docherty: I pleased that the question of how our new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers are to be maintained has attracted such widespread interest in the House. My constituents and everyone in Fife can only be reassured by the keen interest shown by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in this important issue. I hope that the House will consider this important matter seriously and sombrely.
	For the benefit of hon. Members who are present, it might help if I explain why this debate is so important, not just to west Fife, but to the wider defence establishment and, indeed, to our national interest. Only two functioning dockyards in western Europe are big enough to take the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers: Rosyth dockyard in my constituency and the one in Brittany, France. I hope that the turnout tonight shows the widespread support for the Government to choose the UK dockyard and to support UK jobs and the defence industry.
	Rosyth dockyard has a long and proud tradition of supporting our Royal Navy, and of returning warships to active service in prime condition on time and on budget. The House may recall that at the outbreak of the Falklands conflict in 1982, Rosyth dockyard worked night and day to ensure that the taskforce was able to sail south in the best possible condition.

Penny Mordaunt: The Falklands conflict is a good example to show the importance of operational readiness and the stress that will be on the carriers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that means that the bulk of maintenance work will have to be done in their home port of Portsmouth, and is that why the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) told my constituents that they would be based there?

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's comments, but she obviously needs to work on her pronunciation of my right hon. Friend's constituency. It is absolutely right that Royal Navy warships receive the best possible care and maintenance, and I hope that she will join me in urging her Government to back UK jobs and the UK's defence industry.
	We would never wish to see events such as the Falklands repeated, but-to pick up on the hon. Lady's point-I believe that it is a matter of national importance that the United Kingdom retains the capability to send the Royal Navy's flagship into operations in the best possible condition. We have highly skilled, highly trained staff at Rosyth, and I want to pay tribute not only to the management and work force but to the local schools and colleges that provide excellent training and support.

Lindsay Roy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I am a former head teacher, and my school provided a substantial number of highly motivated and trained people who are currently working in Rosyth. Does he agree that the unique partnership between Babcock, Carnegie college and the schools has assured the high-quality apprenticeship training, vocational retraining and graduate development necessary not only to assemble the carriers but to carry out the excellent refits and refurbishments for which Rosyth is rightly renowned?

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has a history of 30-odd years of service as a first-class educator of young people in Fife. I also want to place on record my tribute to Professor Bill McIntosh and all the staff at Carnegie college, and, indeed, those at Adam Smith college, for their work with the dockyard in helping to create 350 apprenticeships in a highly skilled work force.

Menzies Campbell: This is a non-partisan, all-Fife occasion, and I would like to support the hon. Gentleman in his submissions to the House. He might also care to consider that HMS Ark Royal, which is unfortunately soon to be decommissioned, was recently the subject of a substantial programme of maintenance that was very successfully carried out at Rosyth dockyard. That is an indication of the modern capability of Rosyth to deal with such large-scale projects.

Thomas Docherty: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely correct to point out the cross-party support that the dockyard has enjoyed. We hope that this will be a bipartisan, measured debate, and I look forward to his continuing support in the months and years to come.
	The UK Government's recent strategic defence and security review produced a couple of significant outcomes on which I hope the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance. First, he will be aware of the uncertainty surrounding the near-term future of the work programme at Rosyth. A large part of the order book for the next three years was to be filled by the refitting of warships that the Prime Minister has indicated in the SDSR will no longer be in service. This is obviously causing consternation locally, as there is the potential for perhaps an 18-month hole in the work stream. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that it will be difficult for the dockyard to hold on to those vital employees for that length of time, and I want to ask him whether he is prepared to meet me and representatives of the trade unions to discuss how we can help to fill that void.
	Secondly, we are still unclear about whether the so-called "cat and trap" system will be fitted on to HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, and, if so, when. Can the Minister confirm whether those decisions have been made? If they have not, will he tell us how soon they will be made? It is surely logical-not to mention providing the best price to the taxpayer-to fit them during construction, before the ships embark on operations.
	Thirdly, can the Minister confirm when HMS Queen Elizabeth will enter operational service? Will she sail for any period without the joint strike fighter, or will she be delayed further if the JSF is delayed in arriving into service? Will the Minister also tell the House when he expects HMS Queen Elizabeth to have her first scheduled refit? Will it be in 2022, as originally scheduled? Will it be 2024, as has been inferred from the Prime Minster's statement to the House? Or will it be even later?
	The House will be aware that Ministry of Defence civil servants carried out briefings this afternoon, and there is some confusion about their content. I understand that Scottish newspapers have received certain information prior to its being given to the House. If the reports that the Ministry of Defence will award those refurbishment contracts to the United Kingdom are true, it is indeed great news. However, I am sure the House will agree that reports of this nature should be made first by Ministers to this House and not by officials in briefings to selected newspapers.
	It is important that the Government be clear on the timetable for their plans so that the loyal work force in Fyfe will know when it can expect the first refit work to start. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Gordon Brown: rose-

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Gordon Brown: At the start of any defence debate, even one on the Adjournment, it is important to recognise the quality and commitment of our armed forces: our Army, our Navy, our Air Force, and the civilian defence staff who work for the security, strength and safety of our country. Speaking as someone who has visited Iraq and Afghanistan on many occasions, I think it is important to pay tribute to all those serving in Afghanistan at the moment and to their contribution to the security of this country.
	In the week that precedes Armistice day, I also think it important to recognise those who gave their lives in the service of this country. On this day and in this month, it is important to say that those who lost their lives in Afghanistan will never be forgotten and that their influence lives on in the lives of the people they leave behind.
	I have been Member of Parliament for one of the Fife constituencies for 27 years. I am pleased that the other MPs for Fife are with us this evening, and I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) for securing this debate and for securing this above-average attendance for an Adjournment debate. In the course of those 27 years, the whole history of Fife has revolved around the future and the fate of Rosyth dockyard.
	Winston Churchill said that Rosyth was the best defended war harbour in the world, in recognition of Rosyth's work during the second world war, when it refitted as an emergency all the vessels sent to sea from that area of Scotland. Over the past 30 years, the naval base has closed; the Rosyth dockyard and naval base, which once employed 15,000 people now employs 1,500 people. Rosyth is the only base that can assemble the aircraft carriers that this country has commissioned. It is also the only base that can serve us by refitting the carriers in the future. When announcements are to be made by the Ministry of Defence, it is important to recognise that Rosyth is the base best able to refit the carriers in the years to come.
	I want to be clear about why the aircraft carriers are important to this country. I believe that the debate has been clouded by many things that have been said over the last few weeks. These are military decisions, made on military advice for military reasons. The reason the decisions have been made is that if we are to retain a global presence as a Navy, as armed forces and as a country, we will need these aircraft carriers in the years to come. We will need them not only because they are important to the defence of the Falklands, but because they are important for maintaining the 500-year role of the Royal Navy in being available to assist in any part of the world.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has put the case for the refitting work to come to Rosyth. He has said that it is better to refit there than to refit in France. He has also said that the work force of Rosyth are skilled, educated and trained people who have devoted their lives to the service of this country. I think it important to recognise that we are talking about the future of people's lives-those of the people who are prepared to give their lives for the security and service of this country.
	Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this Adjournment debate this evening. The words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife in speaking up not just for the Royal Navy, but for the civilian defence workers, will be well heard in Plymouth and in Portsmouth as well as in Rosyth. We owe a duty to the workers in all this country's dockyard areas.

Peter Luff: It is right that I should begin by joining the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) in paying tribute to the armed services at this time of all times, and also to Rosyth for its work in preparing the country for the Falklands war and for its skills, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife.
	I seem to pick my Adjournment debates, or perhaps they pick me. On the last occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) initiated a debate on the aerospace industry which we had thought would last half an hour. It lasted for three hours, and attracted an only slightly smaller audience than tonight's debate. Tonight we have had the privilege of being footnotes in parliamentary history.
	I am glad to be able to respond to the debate in, I hope, a constructive spirit. I am tempted to say some of the things that are on my mind, but I shall leave them for another occasion.  [Interruption.] I shall resist the temptation.
	Let me begin in the customary way by congratulating the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife on securing the debate, which comes soon after the Prime Minister's announcement of the details of the strategic defence and security review. The review was, by definition, strategic, and we are now working through the detail that flows from that strategy. Given that some of the issues discussed by right hon. and hon. Members tonight have focused on specifics, I hope that the House will accept that I am not yet in a position to answer all their questions. I will, however, try to provide as much information as I can in response to the issues that have been raised.
	I particularly welcomed the contribution of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. I well remember sitting on the Opposition Benches and making similar points on behalf of my own constituents, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find my response as constructive as I found many Government responses then.
	Let me say how impressed I have been by the work undertaken at all the shipyards involved in the Queen Elizabeth class project. Although I have not yet had an opportunity to visit every yard, I recently visited the Govan shipyard to see the progress on the Queen Elizabeth carrier. While I was there I spoke to a range of staff, all of whom showed their skills and complete dedication to the project. They were a credit to the programme, and I pay tribute to them.
	The progress achieved so far, such as the delivery of the bow unit and installation of diesel generators, is genuinely remarkable. To appreciate the scale of the project, one has to see it with one's own eyes. That success is largely due to the skills of shipyard workers not just at Rosyth but around the country, at Appledore, Birkenhead, Govan and Portsmouth, and on the Tyne.
	I shall not go into the wider issues raised by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. Let me merely say that the strategic defence and security review has confirmed that we will build both carriers. The Government believe that it is right to retain, in the long term, the capability that only carriers provide: the ability to deploy air power anywhere in the world, without the need for friendly air bases on land. Once delivered, the carriers will be in service for about 50 years. Indeed, the final commander of the carriers is unlikely even to have been born yet.
	At this point we expect to operate only one of the ships, the other being retained in extended readiness. I assure the House, however, that we will maximise the carrier's effectiveness by adapting it to operate the more capable carrier variant of the joint strike fighter, which will require the installation of catapults and arrester gear. Conversion to CV will take longer, but it will provide greater interoperability with key allies such as the United States and France.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife asked a number of detailed questions, but I am afraid that I can travel only a certain distance in answering them tonight. We plan to deliver the carrier strike capability from around 2020, and are now investigating the optimum means of achieving that outcome, working with members of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance and wider industry as well as our international partners. We expect the work to take a number of months, but the building work will continue to maintain the momentum in the delivery of this important capability. We will investigate a number of different aspects, including the type of launch system, the procurement route, the delivery date, and whether one or both ships should be converted and in what order. However, I stress that no decisions have yet been made, as the work has only just begun.

Julian Lewis: Can my hon. Friend at least go as far as dispelling any rumour or suggestion that the second carrier will be sold rather than remaining a part of the Royal Navy?

Peter Luff: That option is indeed spelt out in the SDSR document, but I think that it is unlikely to be adopted. Extended readiness is a much more likely option.
	I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that until the work on all the options we are looking at has been completed, we will not be in a position to confirm the exact nature of our contracting approach for future support or maintenance work. The main investment decision for support arrangements for the Queen Elizabeth class is expected to be taken before the middle of this decade-that is as precise as I can be tonight-and will reflect the aircraft launch system changes that have been agreed in the SDSR.  [Interruption.] An Opposition Member says from a sedentary position, "After the general election." That is a completely irrelevant consideration; this decision will be taken at the right time for the project.

Thomas Docherty: Does the Minister not understand that if the HMS Prince of Wales does not have a "cat and trap" system it will not be able to fly the aircraft off it, and it will therefore just be a big scrap of metal?

Peter Luff: Understandably, the hon. Gentleman invites me to make commitments that I cannot make at this stage. I understand his point and I promise it will be taken fully into account.  [Interruption.] An Opposition Member says from a sedentary position that it is a very serious question. I entirely agree, which is why I will not give an answer off the cuff from the Dispatch Box tonight.
	Our planning assumptions for the support requirements of the Queen Elizabeth class have been that each vessel will require a period of major maintenance every six years, including a period in dry dock for hull cleaning, survey and preservations, which we expect will take about 36 weeks. In addition, the operational vessel will require up to 12 weeks of maintenance per year, depending on operational tasking. Again, I must stress that these assumptions remain under review as we continue to develop the support solution, which will include consideration of the support requirements for a vessel at extended readiness. I simply cannot answer any specific questions at this stage.
	We are also currently examining a number of potential options on which company or companies could undertake future maintenance work for the Queen Elizabeth class. These include, but are not limited to, solutions involving the Aircraft Carrier Alliance-the means by which the carriers are being constructed-and the surface ship support alliance, which will provide efficient, sustainable and affordable engineering support to the Royal Navy.
	In addition, I would like to remind the House that although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) reminded us in her intervention, Portsmouth has been confirmed as the base port for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, that does not automatically mean that all the maintenance work will be undertaken there. A number of options are being considered for the future support of the Queen Elizabeth class, including facilities at Rosyth, together with other UK, and possibly overseas, locations, all with sufficiently large facilities. There are more than two yards that can do this work.

Penny Mordaunt: Because of the operational readiness that the carriers will have to provide, does my hon. Friend agree that outside those six years the maintenance work is likely to have to be opportunistic and therefore done within the home base, which will be Portsmouth?

Peter Luff: Quite reasonably, my hon. Friend teases me to make the same sort of commitments as does the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. I am afraid, however, that I just cannot make those commitments at this stage, much as I would like to.

Ian Davidson: Does the Minister accept that if one aircraft carrier is on extended readiness and a second, which is being used for operational duties, has to go into dry dock, there will be no aircraft carrier available for use, and would he therefore consider building a third?

Peter Luff: Now, that is a commitment I would be delighted to make at the Dispatch Box if I possibly could. I think the hon. Gentleman will be unsurprised to learn, however, that, sadly, I am unable to give him that assurance.
	I recognise that there are many positive reasons for undertaking Queen Elizabeth support work at Rosyth, but we are still some way from taking the main investment decision on support arrangements, and I hope the House will understand why no decisions have yet been-or could be-taken on this issue. That is why the reports in the Scottish media to which the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife referred must, by definition, be untrue. I suspect they may be guilty of over-interpreting certain remarks, but I can assure him that no decisions have been taken at this stage. I think I would know about them if they had.  [Interruption.] I think I would; I am fairly confident I would.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to hear how Babcock Marine's Rosyth dockyard will fare in all of this. I am sure that the Government's announcement in the SDSR to build both carriers will reassure the hon. Gentleman that Babcock Marine will have sufficient construction work until late into this decade. There are not many organisations that have that kind of assurance over a 10-year period.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that newspaper point. Will he therefore give a guarantee that when decisions are made, they will be made to the House before they are made in media briefings, such as the night before the SDSR was published, as happened last time?

Peter Luff: I did take a self-denying vow at the beginning of these remarks not to say some of the things on my mind. All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that I will do my best to comply with his reasonable request, although it was not one that the previous Government respected that often.  [Interruption.] I just like to get these things on the record from time to time.
	In terms of wider surface ship maintenance work, we continue to work with Babcock Marine and BAE Systems Surface Ships to develop the surface ship support alliance. Babcock Marine is in the final stages of a substantial six-month maintenance and upgrade period for HMS Blyth, a minesweeper. I am pleased to confirm that this work is on track to complete on time and to budget, and I wish to thank all who have contributed to the success of this project-this is a tribute to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Additionally, Babcock Marine is undertaking a docking period for HMS Illustrious and I am also pleased to be able to confirm that HMS Kent, a Type 23 frigate, is expected to arrive at Rosyth later this week in preparation for her refit period, which is planned to last until next autumn.
	Recently, the hon. Gentlemen wrote to me seeking assurances about the future upkeep programme at Rosyth-he sought that assurance again tonight-and I would like to take this opportunity to explain again the Department's current position. As has been the practice since the start of the alliance programme, discussions have been continuous between members of the alliance about the best allocation of the forward programme of upkeep periods. It is, however, too early to say what changes might be required of the programme at Rosyth and elsewhere in the alliance following the hard decisions made to reduce the size of the Royal Navy as part of the SDSR. I can, however, confirm that decisions will continue to be made on what we describe as a "best for enterprise" basis, and I will be delighted to meet him and his constituents to discuss these issues further. I look forward to making the arrangements for that meeting at the earliest possible date.
	Turning to future shipbuild work, we now expect up to three years of additional design and modification work on the Queen Elizabeth class carriers to address the changes needed to install catapults and arrester gear. That may, in part, at least answer the question put by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. In addition, design work is already under way on the Type 26 global combat ship, which is expected to enter service early in the next decade; this is the next generation of frigate.
	As the House is aware, the SDSR announced the Government's intentions for the current and future equipment and capabilities we need to defend this country. It made some tough, but necessary choices, removing some projects while keeping others. We are now working hard to provide the level of detail needed to decide exactly how these intentions are turned into reality. With the decision to decommission some of the Royal Navy's ships-these are decisions that I personally regret, but they were inevitable-we need to continue working with industry to decide how best to support the Royal Navy surface fleet to ensure that we achieve the best value for money. We also know that maintenance work on the Queen Elizabeth class is still some way-some years-from being decided. A key factor in that decision will be achieving a more detailed understanding of what changing the aircraft launch system means for not only the build programme, but through-life support. I said at the start of my speech, that I will not be able to provide the House with all the answers today that I know it would like, but we do know that two extremely capable Queen Elizabeth class carriers will be built.

Gordon Brown: Why can the Minister not assure us that the aircraft carriers will be refitted within the United Kingdom?

Peter Luff: I think that it is extremely likely that they will be, but I cannot rule out the possibility that they will not; the assumption is that they will be refitted in the UK, as the right hon. Gentleman suggestions, but I am not going to give him that categorical assurance at this stage, for reasons that I am sure he, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister, will understand.

Gordon Brown: indicated dissent.

Peter Luff: Well, the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head and I am surprised at that. As a constituency MP I am sure he would not understand, but as a former Chancellor and Prime Minister I suspect that he probably does.
	With one carrier to be operated, there will be long-term requirements for maintenance, potentially for up to 50 years. In times of austerity across the country, the UK shipbuilding industry and ship repair industry should take great comfort from that, as well as the other naval activity, both surface and submarine, that the SDSR confirmed. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife on securing this debate and look forward to seeing him at my office at an early date
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 28 October 2010: In column 519, the contribution attributed to Julian Sturdy should be attributed to Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon (Con):